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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: every fact retains source, page, quote, method, qualifiers, and disagreements, and the data are aggregate published counts that cannot identify individuals. It also flags important comparability caveats, including Section 702 target estimation and changed FBI query counting.

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 front-loaded with the core return behavior and then groups the comparability and privacy caveats efficiently. It is dense but each sentence contributes relevant guidance; it could be slightly more structured, but it is not padded.

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 multi-series statistical retrieval tool with no output schema, the description does a good job covering provenance, caveats, and the aggregate nature of the data. It does not fully specify the response shape or pagination behavior, but the essential context for correct use is present.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that filters are exact and that series measure different things, but it does not add syntax or selection detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns published agency counts from the MORVS Surveillance Orders Register national-security source ledger. It also states the optional filtering dimensions, so an agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools such as wiretap_orders.

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 clearly explains how to use the tool: optionally filter by exact series ID and period, and never add across series because they use different units, laws, and periods. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer a sibling tool, but the usage constraints within the tool are strong and specific.

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