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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, the description adds significant contextual behavior: it explains that a stale/disabled source indicates a monitoring gap rather than agency inaction, and that only half the registry is currently answering. It also includes the data provider and license, and a legal disclaimer. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's semantics.

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 main purpose and then provides usage warning, free tier, and attribution. It is two sentences but somewhat long; however, every part is informative and no words are wasted. It could be tightened but remains efficiently structured.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately hints at return fields (last successful read, stale/blocked status) and gives enough context about the data set (254 sources, types). It could include details about pagination or default filtering, but given the tool's simplicity and rich annotations, completeness is solid.

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?

With schema coverage at only 33%, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does hint at 'stale or blocked' (which likely maps to is_stale and is_enabled) but it does not mention the jurisdiction_level filter at all, nor does it explain how these filters interact. This leaves the user guessing about the full querying capability.

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 identifies the tool as listing all 254 enforcement sources with their read status and staleness, using a specific resource ('enforcement sources behind the registry') and distinct from siblings like 'get_enforcement_coverage' or 'search_enforcement_matters'. It also notes the specific fields returned, which adds precision.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use it BEFORE concluding that an agency has done nothing', and explains the meaning of stale/blocked sources to avoid misinterpretation. It also clarifies that no API key is needed, which is practical usage guidance. This is superior to simply stating 'use this for X'.

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