FCC Proceeding Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing the return fields (description, bureau, type, status, filing count, key dates), which informs the agent what data to expect. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover all possible behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 return fields, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It is efficiently structured for an agent to quickly parse.

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 tool has a simple single-parameter input and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return format. It provides the purpose, usage context, and a summary of the response fields, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'docket' parameter including examples. The description only says 'by docket number', which repeats the schema. Since schema already fully documents the parameter, the description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get full details of a specific FCC proceeding by docket number from ECFS') and the resource (FCC proceeding). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool fcc.regulatory.search_proceedings by noting it should be used after that search to get full details of a specific docket. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from its siblings.

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 usage guidance: 'Use after fcc.regulatory.search_proceedings to get full details of a specific docket.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool versus the search tool. It also implies the workflow step before using this tool, making the usage context clear.

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