get_title_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the most important behavioral characteristic — it returns only hierarchical structure, not regulation text — which prevents an agent from using this as a text-retrieval tool. 'Fetch' also implies a read operation with no mutation.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action/resource, includes the critical exclusion (no regulation text), and ends with the practical use case. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple fetch tool: it states what is returned, what is not returned, and why an agent would call it, while the supplied output schema covers return structure. The optional date parameter is already documented in the schema, so no additional detail is needed.

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%, with both 'title' and 'date' fully described, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('hierarchical structure of a CFR title'), and explicitly excludes regulation text, which distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like retrieve_title or retrieve_part. The stated purpose ('planning which part/section to retrieve next') further clarifies its role.

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 clearly signals when to use this tool: as a planning/navigation step before retrieving a specific part or section. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'no regulation text' caveat and sibling list make the intended context evident.

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