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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context: daily updates since 1988, source lineage, methodology version, and the return components. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences plus a short update-frequency note. Information is front-loaded with what it returns, then when to use it. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the main return components (index score, IOM carrying score, historical percentile, source lineage, methodology version) and explains the index construction. Together with the schema's 'days' parameter, it is sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gap: the Gold tier limitation appears only in the schema, not the description, but structured coverage compensates.

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?

The single optional 'days' parameter is fully described in the schema (history series vs snapshot, Gold tier requirement, max 1825 days), giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add additional parameter details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Returns a 0-100 US federal rulemaking-pace index' and details the index composition (Federal Register counts, 30-day vs 90-day ratio, final rules weighted). This clearly distinguishes it from the many unnamed sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'Call when the user asks about regulatory volatility, rulemaking acceleration or slowdown, Federal Register activity, policy or compliance risk, or when timing compliance-review sprints and regulated-feature prioritization.' It provides clear triggers but lacks when-not or alternative tool exclusions, so a 4.

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