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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that results are recent and time-bounded via a look-back window, and that filtering is optional. However, it does not describe the sort order, return shape, or any edge-case behavior such as what happens when no documents are found, which leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, resource, and optional filters, and the second sentence gives a concrete use case, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 listing tool with all-optional parameters and a complete parameter schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a primary use case. It does not fully describe the returned data structure, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters days, type, agency, and per_page are already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond highlighting the type and agency filters, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('most recent Federal Register documents') and mentions the optional filters by type and agency. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_documents.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to monitor newly published rules/notices from an agency.' This gives the agent a strong contextual signal for when to choose this tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as search_documents.

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