search_cfr

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses the critical current_only default behavior and the consequence of disabling it (duplicated historical versions), the 10,000-result cap, ordering options, date format expectations, and pagination limits. This is substantial behavioral context with no contradiction.

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 organized with a leading summary, a CRITICAL callout, then grouped parameter guidance. Every sentence adds operational value and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a 13-parameter, full-text search tool, the description covers the main use case, return shape, dangerous default, pagination, ordering, agency filtering, and date filtering. Since the output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and it is complete enough to guide correct 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains current_only, order, agency_slugs, last_modified_after/before, per_page, page, and hierarchy filters, but it omits explicit discussion of section and subpart parameters, leaving a small gap.

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 specific verb-resource pairing: 'Full-text search across the Code of Federal Regulations.' It clarifies what is returned (matching sections with excerpts, headings, scores, and hierarchy), distinguishing it from sibling content-retrieval and structure 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 description gives actionable context: the current_only warning for in-effect vs historical text, narrowing with hierarchy filters when hitting the 10,000 cap, and date filters for recent regulatory changes. It also points to list_agencies() for finding slugs, but it does not explicitly state when not to use search versus browsing/content tools.

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