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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the specific return categories, the dated explanation, and the disclaimer that it is informational rather than legal advice. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences: what it checks, what it returns, and when to use it. Every sentence carries operational value and the key regulatory scope is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing possible return values and their legal implication. It also states the intended trigger (before recommending/ordering for a US buyer), leaving no essential gap.

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%, with the single 'model' parameter already explained and exemplified. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking whether a robot model may lawfully be sold in the US under the FCC's 2026 rule. It distinguishes itself from likely siblings by naming the regulatory basis and the legal status output, so an agent can tell it apart from general lookup or purchasing 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?

It explicitly says to use this before recommending or ordering any model for a US buyer, and explains the consequence of unauthorized status. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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