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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what a hit contains (title, type, agencies, publication and effective dates, citation, abstract, official link), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning pagination, total counts, or ranking behavior beyond the order enum.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and document types, followed immediately by the narrowing options. The field list is dense but each item earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers both the corpus and the result shape well. Remaining gaps are the default page size, how ordering interacts with relevance, and whether results are truncated or counted.

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 67%, so the schema already documents term, type, since and agency, including the agency slug examples that the description repeats. The description adds nothing about limit (default 5, max 20) or order (newest vs relevance) semantics, so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema meaningfully.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search Federal Register') and enumerates the document classes covered (rules, proposed rules, notices, presidential documents) plus the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what corpus is queried. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as list_ofac_actions or search_screening_lists, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Narrow by agency ..., type or date' implies how to scope a query, but there is no statement of when this tool is the right choice versus the sibling list_* / search_* tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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