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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'FREE beta' (availability/cost status) and specifies what document types are searched, which is useful. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or output limitations after the annotations already carry the main behavioral disclosures.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: 'FREE beta. Compact Federal Register search for current rules...' Each fragment adds a distinct piece of information (free/beta, compactness, search scope). It is efficient, but the extreme brevity leaves out parameter and usage context that an agent would need.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too minimal to be fully self-sufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, expected input format, or when to choose this over the evidence variant. The annotations cover safety, but not usage context or operational details.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain query and limit parameters. It never mentions either parameter, nor their constraints (query required, min 2/max 160; limit 1–25). The description only lists the content categories searched, adding no meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: a 'Compact Federal Register search' covering 'current rules, proposed rules, notices and presidential documents.' It does not explicitly reference or contrast the sibling federal_register_search_evidence, though the title's 'Basic' and the word 'Compact' imply a limited version. This is clear purpose without direct sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as federal_register_search_evidence. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The phrase 'Compact' vaguely suggests limited scope, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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