APIbase

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It compensates well by enumerating specific return fields (title, abstract, agencies, effective date, PDF link, comment deadline), which is crucial given the absence of an output schema. Could improve by explicitly stating read-only nature.

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?

Single sentence structure is front-loaded with the action ('Get full Federal Register document') and efficiently lists return fields after the em-dash. Zero wasted words; every clause earns its place by either specifying scope or documenting output.

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 tool's simplicity (single required parameter) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing all major return fields. Minor gap regarding error handling or rate limiting, but sufficient for a straightforward document retrieval tool.

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% with the parameter 'document_number' fully described including an example format. The description reinforces the 'by number' retrieval pattern but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'Federal Register document' and scope 'by number'. The 'by number' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools legal.fedregister.search (general search) and legal.fedregister.recent (recent listings).

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 phrase 'by number' clearly implies usage context (when you have a specific document number), distinguishing it from search alternatives. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or named alternatives for discovery scenarios.

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