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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds valuable context: 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. US federal only. Timeout is 30 seconds — large dockets may be slow. Verified source: Regulations.gov + Federal Register fallback. 4-hour cache.' This goes beyond 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?

The description is efficient, front-loading the purpose, then providing usage guidance, parameter details, behavioral notes, and a fallback instruction. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (fetching docket details) and the richness of annotations and output schema, the description completes the picture by listing returned fields, caching behavior, timeout, and source reliability. No gaps remain.

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 sole parameter 'docket_id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds formatting examples (e.g., 'EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317') that help the agent construct valid values, but the schema already provides a basic description.

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 starts with 'Fetch full details for a specific regulatory docket by ID,' clearly stating the verb (fetch) and resource (regulatory docket). It differentiates from sibling tools like regulatory_search_open_rulemakings and regulatory_fetch_federal_register_notices by specifying when to use each.

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 use this tool ('when you have a docket ID from a search') and when to use the alternative ('Use regulatory_search_open_rulemakings instead when you need to find dockets by topic first'). Also instructs to call report_feedback if the response doesn't serve the user's need.

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