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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds value by stating it is a pure pass-through with nothing persisted and by enumerating the returned fields (titles, agencies, dates, URLs, summaries). The only remaining gap is freshness/latency behavior behind the word 'recent' and the two-source aggregation, which is implied but not spelled out.

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-loaded with what it does and where the data comes from, then usage examples, then exclusions and return shape. It is longer than most, but nearly every sentence carries routing or behavioral information; the parenthetical examples could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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?

With no output schema, the description still describes return fields, and with only two well-documented parameters and full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to know when not to. Nothing material about this tool's behavior or scope 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by giving real query-construction guidance ('specific multi-word queries built around an OSHA topic or standard') with examples pairing topics to standard numbers. The limit parameter is left to the schema, which already documents the default of 6 and cap of 12.

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 (search regulatory/safety news) and names the exact sources: Federal Register filtered to OSHA plus the OSHA news RSS feed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_law_corpus, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 concrete when-to-use triggers (rule changes, enforcement memos, course-content impact) with quoted example questions, plus explicit exclusions: NOT for tenant-data questions and NOT for established standards, which are routed to search_law_corpus. The alternative is named with the condition that selects it.

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