search_regulations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that this is a full-text search; it does not mention important behaviors such as date scoping, pagination, agency filtering, or the fact that date=None may return duplicates and superseded text. No contradictions exist, but transparency is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential operation immediately and every word earns its place, making it a model of concise structure.

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 rich input schema (100% parameter coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. The main gap is that it does not position this tool relative to search_by_keyword, but invocation-critical details are available in the structured data.

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 itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which already thoroughly documents query, date, page, per_page, and agency_slugs, including the nuanced date sentinel behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), a clear resource ('the CFR'), and a specific input type ('free-text query or phrase'), making the tool's core function immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool search_by_keyword, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_by_keyword or the various retrieval tools. There is no mention of scenarios that favor this tool or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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