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

Annotations already mark read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds material behavior beyond annotations: 30-second timeout, slow large dockets, 4-hour cache, verified source with Federal Register fallback, and the exact return fields. No contradiction.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose and safety first, then parameter, then usage routing, then performance/source/cache details, then the failure feedback path. Dense but structured and front-loaded.

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 read-only fetch with an output schema, the description covers all operational context an agent needs: when to use, alternatives, timeout, cache, source verification, and how to report gaps. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already documents docket_id with 100% coverage. The description supplements it with 'agency format' and two concrete example formats (EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317, FTC-2024-0041), which adds useful context but is only marginal 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch full details for a specific regulatory docket by ID.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling search tool and focuses on retrieval by ID, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when you have a docket ID from a search' and directs to regulatory_search_open_rulemakings when topic discovery is needed first. It also scopes the tool to US federal dockets, covering prerequisites.

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