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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond those: it filters comment windows client-side on comments_close_on when the API cannot server-side filter, names the source (Federal Register API), and discloses cost ($0.10 USDC per call). These are behavioral traits an agent needs to make informed calls, elevating it above the baseline.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by implementation detail, source, and cost. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no schema descriptions, no enums, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke it correctly. It fails to explain what the parameters mean or what the return value will look like. The 'when to use' guidance is solid, but the 'how' and 'what to expect' are missing. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero required parameters and no schema hints.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions for term, agencies, or days_ahead, and the description itself does not explain any of these parameters. The only hint is 'comments_close_on', which is not a parameter. With 0% schema coverage and zero compensation, the agent has no guidance on what values to supply for each parameter, making it nearly impossible to call correctly with meaningful arguments.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: tracking Federal Register proposed rules and notices with open comment periods. It names a specific resource (Federal Register) and a specific action (tracking comment deadlines). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_docket_intelligence or get_regulatory_news_synthesis, which might overlap, but the focus on comment periods is specific enough to be unique.

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 provides a clear trigger condition: 'Use when tracking Federal Register proposed rules and notices with open comment periods.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full exclusion set. Still, the context is explicit and actionable.

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