Search official government updates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the tool runs a named Apify Actor on the caller's own Apify account, cost is ~$0.003 per update with a $0.5 per-call spend cap, and robots.txt is respected for scraped list pages. Cost/quota and billing-surface disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs and that annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and a clear coverage enumeration, then closes with filtering and cost. The long source list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent which regulators are actually reachable, though it could be tightened into a shorter source grouping.

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?

With an output schema present, return structure need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would care about: source scope, filter dimensions, jurisdiction reach, cost model, and the external account dependency. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema itself already documents all nine parameters and their defaults, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only modest value: it hints at feed_urls/page_urls ('any RSS feed or official "What's new" list page you name') and notes results are sector-tagged, but it also names a filter ('authority') that does not exist as a parameter, which can mislead rather than clarify.

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?

States a specific resource (official government updates) and enumerates exactly which sources are covered (Federal Register, SEC, GOV.UK, EC, Indian regulators, custom RSS/list pages). This makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like search_google_news or search_reddit, which cover general news/social rather than regulator-published documents.

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 makes clear what the tool is for (regulatory/news harvesting across named jurisdictions) and the filtering dimensions available, which implicitly steers an agent away from generic news search tools. It stops short of explicit 'use X instead when Y' routing or stated exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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