search_circulars

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'returns matching circulars' but omits critical details like rate limits, pagination, result ordering, or whether the search is exhaustive. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences—first stating the action and parameters, second describing the output. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the input and output. However, it lacks details on output format, result count limits, or error handling, which would be helpful for a search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions. The tool description adds value by providing concrete examples for parameters ('query' examples include '150/5200-28', 'wildlife'; 'date_after' examples like '2024-01-01'), which clarifies usage beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Search FAA Advisory Circulars') with specific search methods ('by keyword, AC number, or topic') and enumerates the returned data ('titles, applicability, and FAA links'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_airport_profile or list_circulars_by_subject.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., search_faa_recent_acs, list_circulars_by_subject). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.