retrieve_title

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: certain large titles may be slow or time out. It also implies a read-only operation by saying 'Retrieve the text.' It doesn't cover every possible edge case, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 compact: one clear purpose sentence followed by a concise, high-signal warning. Every sentence earns its place, the warning is scannable with 'WARNING:' and the guidance is front-loaded without unnecessary detail.

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 that the tool has only two parameters, a rich input schema, and an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, scope, performance caveats, and sibling alternatives. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents title as 'CFR title number (1-50)' and date with a full default/format description. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter details and does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve the text of an entire CFR title.' The word 'entire' disambiguates it from retrieve_part and retrieve_section, so an agent can immediately recognize the tool's scope and distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 warning explicitly states when not to use this tool and names alternatives: 'Strongly prefer retrieve_part or retrieve_section when you know which part or section is relevant — use this only for small titles or genuinely title-wide questions.' This gives the agent actionable selection criteria rather than leaving it to inference.

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