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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: what is returned (section numbers, titles, snippet) and the caveat that eCFR codified text lags the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul class deviations, which affects result trustworthiness.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose and matching rule first, then scope and follow-up. The fragment 'straight to it' and the dangling 'reg: FAR | DFARS to limit' read as slightly compressed notes rather than clean prose, which costs a point.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the return shape (section numbers, titles, snippet). With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the only remaining gap is whether results are ranked or paginated.

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, and the description still adds meaning: the query is conjunctive (every word must match, in title or text) and may instead be a section number, and reg limits results to one regulation. This goes beyond the enum and field descriptions.

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 and resource ('Search the FAR and the DFARS') plus the exact matching semantics: all query words in title/text, or a section number. It also names get_far_section as the follow-up, so an agent can distinguish searching from reading without opening other schemas.

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?

The description routes the agent explicitly: search here, then 'read one with get_far_section', and gives an example query ('52.219-14') that shows direct-lookup usage. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like search_codes, but the search-vs-read split is clear.

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