watch_federal_register

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the $0.005 cost, the requirement of WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY, the return fields (agency, date, abstract, links), the newest-first ordering, and the empty-query behavior. This is substantial practical behavioral information an agent needs before calling.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the critical paid requirement, then packs in the result types, output fields, ordering, default behavior, and auth requirement. Every clause contributes without redundancy.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: cost, authentication, query semantics, default behavior, and return content. No significant gap remains for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 schema already describes 'q' as a search term with an example. The description adds meaning by framing it as a 'topic', indicating the parameter is optional, and explaining that an empty query returns latest government-wide results. This goes beyond the schema's basic definition.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning the newest US regulations and official notices from the Federal Register, listing specific content types (proposed/final rules, executive orders, notices) and result fields. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on contracts, lobbying, trades, and bills.

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 clear context on how to use it: supply a topic query, or leave it empty for government-wide latest notices. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the domain is distinct enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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