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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the scope of returned content, which is useful but is not behavior beyond the annotations; no auth, rate-limit, or error-context details are given.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the identifier and its example stated up front, followed by an efficient field enumeration. The trailing field list is a little dense but every item is informative about the payload, so there is no real waste.

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 one-parameter lookup whose output schema already defines the return shape and whose annotations already define safety, the description is essentially complete: it identifies the resource, the key, and the payload breadth. The only shortfall is the absence of any pointer to sibling tools for obtaining the document number.

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 100% schema description coverage on a single parameter, the schema already documents the document_number argument and its provenance. The description restates the example format ('2026-12811'), adding marginal formatting confirmation but no semantics beyond 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get full detail on a single Federal Register document') and a precise lookup key with a concrete example ('2026-12811'). The singular, ID-driven lookup is plainly distinct from the search_documents/recent_documents siblings, and the enumerated field list (abstract, action, effective date, CFR references, agencies) confirms what 'full detail' means.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names the alternatives (search_documents, recent_documents) that would route the agent here. The only workflow hint ('Get one from search_documents or recent_documents') lives in the input schema, not the description, so the description itself carries no selection guidance.

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