search_regulations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for transparency is lower. The description adds valuable context by noting the dual behavior of searching CFR and also surfacing recent Federal Register documents affecting the matched part.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function and usage context. Every sentence serves a purpose without wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for selecting and invoking the tool. It explains the main capabilities and usage domains, though it could explicitly describe the return structure (e.g., a list of CFR sections plus FR documents) to be fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide (e.g., query accepts citation or keyword, includeFederalRegister controls FR results). It aligns with the schema but does not compensate beyond it.

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 searches federal regulations (CFR) by citation or keyword and surfaces related Federal Register rulemaking. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from search_law by noting statutes live there.

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 explicit use cases: agency requirements, permits, thresholds, and compliance obligations. It also gives an exclusion and alternative: statutes live in search_law. This directly guides the agent on when to choose this tool over a sibling.

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