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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses which document classes are in scope, but it omits critical behavior such as the recency window, ordering, and whether results are capped by a fixed period rather than just the limit.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope followed by the filter note. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing recency-window detail.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool this is minimally adequate: the scope is clear and the schema covers the inputs. It falls short on defining the 'recent' window and on giving any hint of the result shape, which the absence of an output schema would otherwise demand.

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%, and the descriptions for `bank` (substring match) and `limit` (default 50, max 200, effective-date ordering) are fully documented there. The description's note that `bank` is optional adds nothing the schema does not already say, so baseline 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?

Names a specific resource and enumerates the covered action types (consent orders, written agreements, CMPs, removals), which is well beyond a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from recursive peers like doj_recent or courts_recent, leaving the 'Federal Reserve' scope as the only discriminator.

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 only guidance is that the `bank` filter is optional. There is no statement of when to prefer this over other enforcement/regulatory lookups, no prerequisites, and no mention of what time window 'recent' covers, which is the single most important usage question for a recency-scoped tool.

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