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

Annotations already provide readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavior beyond those: funding exclusion, sort order, citation URLs, 90-day window, and result cap. However, the 'up to 25 results per call' claim conflicts with the schema's limit maximum of 50, which is a notable inconsistency.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage routing, then behavioral details. No fluff, but the 'up to 25 results' statement is concise yet contradicts the schema, so it loses a point for misleading precision.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusion behavior, result contents (AI summaries, agencies, effective dates, citation URL), sort order, time window, and result cap. Pagination is not described, but the schema covers offset and limit, so completeness is solid.

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 adds some global behavioral context (category exclusion, time window) but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents. It matches the baseline expectation.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('US federal and state regulatory documents') with clear scope, and explicitly contrasts with search_funding_programs by excluding funding unless category is specified. An agent can distinguish this tool from siblings immediately.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use this tool ('Funding opportunities are excluded unless you pass category "funding"') and routes to the alternative ('use search_funding_programs'). Also adds practical constraints like the 90-day coverage and result limit, helping selection decisions.

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