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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'FREE beta' indicating potential instability, and describes output content (abstracts, agency/date context, provenance). It does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 a single sentence, but it leads with 'FREE beta' which is not the core purpose. The core functionality is stated but could be front-loaded better for immediate clarity.

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 simple search tool with two parameters, the description omits parameter semantics and usage guidance. It does not explain what the evidence variant adds beyond the basic, nor any limitations. The output format is not described, but that may be acceptable given no output schema.

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 has no descriptions and the description does not mention parameters. The query and limit parameters are left unexplained, so an agent must infer their meaning from the tool name alone. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 it returns Federal Register results with abstracts, agency/date context, and provenance, clearly indicating a search tool for Federal Register documents. It distinguishes from the basic sibling by mentioning additional context, though it does not explicitly name the action 'search'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the basic version or other evidence tools. It does not mention any conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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