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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, such as 'Updates: daily' and that history requires Gold tier without which the current snapshot is returned. This discloses important behavior without needing to repeat the read-only nature.

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 two long sentences but both carry essential information: the output and methodology in the first, and usage timing plus update cadence in the second. It is not overly verbose, though it is dense with field names and details; still, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description goes beyond by listing the returned fields, explaining the basis of the score, and covering the optional history behavior, tier requirements, update frequency, and ideal use cases. This is complete for a low-complexity read-only tool with one optional parameter.

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 schema description for the 'days' parameter is 100% covered and describes the optional history series, the 5-year limit, and the Gold tier requirement. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool returns a 0-100 regulatory-burden score for the U.S. financial sector, based on Federal Register rulemaking volume, and lists specific output fields (weighted_current, weighted_prior, current_90d_rules, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource+detail, and the methodology and history to 1995 distinguish it from any generic score tool.

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: 'when the user asks about regulatory burden, rulemaking pace, or financial-sector compliance load, or when timing compliance staffing, budgets, or policy-risk decisions.' This provides clear context, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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