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

Annotations only establish read-only/no-destructive. The description adds material behavior: an authentication and active-plan requirement, a known data gap for category-specific fees, and the upstream sources (G-1055, 89 FR 6194). It does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or error behavior, but the additions are substantive.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior and packs scope limits, auth prerequisites, and provenance into two compact sentences with no filler. The sourcing/disclaimer clauses are arguably secondary but are relevant for a compliance-flavored tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. Combined with the stated auth prerequisite, dataset limitation, and citations, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to interpret a result.

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 both required parameters and the enum are already documented. The description's mention that category-specific fees are unavailable largely restates the schema's own note on 'category', adding little syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the general filing fee and effective date for a USCIS form. The scope (fees, not editions/processing times/bulletins) cleanly separates it from every sibling tool without ambiguity.

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?

Gives clear prerequisites ('requires sign-in ... and an active plan') and explicitly bounds the dataset ('category-specific fees are unavailable'), which tells the agent when this tool will and won't yield useful data. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., check_form_edition) or state explicit when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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