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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the fields each record carries (agencies, action, abstract, comment deadline, effective date) and a coverage limitation ('A free key reaches the last 14 days'), which is exactly the sort of constraint an agent needs before promising completeness. It stops short of explaining result caps or what an unkeyed caller sees beyond that window.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the resource and contents come first, followed by the display instruction and the key limit. Every sentence carries information, though 'in the government's own words' is mild flavor and the presentation directive ('Link the record's url') sits mid-paragraph rather than in a clearly separated note.

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-value explanation is not required, yet the description still usefully previews record contents and the 14-day free-key window. For a six-parameter, all-optional, read-only search tool this is close to complete; only result-set size behavior and whether matching is full-text or title-only remain unstated.

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% and every parameter carries its own prose plus enums for sort and type, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the sort dimension ('newest first or by public-comment deadline') without adding filter syntax or field-matching behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact resource (documents published in the US Federal Register) and enumerates the document kinds covered: final rules, proposed rules, agency notices, presidential documents. This is clearly distinct from every sibling (awards, contracts, recalls, permits, jobs), so an agent can route to it without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the domain framing and by the mention of ordering ('newest first or by public-comment deadline'), which hints at the browse-vs-comment-tracking split. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to any sibling or alternative for overlapping needs such as recent news.

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