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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description layers substantial domain semantics on top: routine uses are permissive statements not evidence of disclosure, later notices can modify a system without reprinting it, exemptions may limit access but don't decide a request. These are interpretation guards an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct caveat, with no filler. It is slightly over-dense, though: 'Recipient tags and record flags are text matches counted as at least; DHS does not imply ICE' is telegraphed too hard for a field that appears nowhere in the input schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the returned components (record description, routine-use text, exemption claim, source record, linked notices). With only two parameters and full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them ('Standard agency boilerplate routine uses are omitted unless include_standard is true' mirrors the schema text verbatim, as does the missing-ID caveat on id). The added value is framing rather than new parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one published federal system of records') and pins the lookup key ('by exact Federal Files Register ID'), then enumerates exactly what comes back. The 'one ... by exact ID' framing distinguishes it from the search-style sibling federal_file_search without needing to name it.

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?

Gives clear operative guidance: standard boilerplate routine uses are omitted unless include_standard is true, and warns the agent to check linked notices and effective dates rather than trusting the reprinted text. It never explicitly says how to obtain the ID in the first place (e.g. via federal_file_search), which is the one selection gap.

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