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

Given no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly explains the scoring mechanism (0-100 based on deadline proximity, effective dates, comment-window closures, document class, significance flag) and the filtering behavior. It also discloses autonomous operation ('Operated by an autonomous AI agent (Krab Bot); the free tier is used here'), which is critical for the agent to understand limitations (e.g., free tier constraints).

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 two well-structured paragraphs with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by context on why the tool is needed (Federal Register noise), the scoring methodology, usage guidance, parameter hints, and an important limitation and operational note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, methodology, filtering, scope, limitations, and operational constraints. The 4 parameters are well-documented in both schema and description, and the context of sibling tools is handled via clear differentiation. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters relate to the tool's purpose (e.g., 'Filter by topic (free text), agency (Federal Register slug...), or document type') and by providing concrete examples for each parameter. However, it doesn't elaborate on the 'days' parameter beyond what the schema says, and the 'types' parameter example is clear but the description could further clarify how multiple types interact.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Check whether... is about to bind or about to close for comment') and clearly distinguishes the tool's unique value: it scores results by deadline proximity and returns only urgent items. This differentiates it from a generic regulation search tool and from siblings like 'check_package_risk' or 'check_stack_eol'.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when asked whether a rule affects a business, what compliance deadlines are coming, or to monitor a regulatory topic on a schedule'). It also provides a clear exclusion: 'US federal only; the score ranks urgency, not whether a rule applies to your specific business.' This guides the agent away from inappropriate uses.

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