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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does real work: it discloses the $0.99 USDC x402 (Base) per-call cost and the 300-record cap, both of which materially affect whether and how an agent invokes it. It omits pagination/truncation behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Telegraphic and front-loaded: content description first, then filters, then limits, then price. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the field list ('with phone, address and insurance on file') is a bit listy.

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 3-optional-param read-only fetch with no output schema, the description covers the filters, defaults, record cap, returned fields, and cost. It lacks only detail on how results are shaped or whether the 300 cap truncates silently.

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% and all three params are already documented there, including defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats rather than extends the parameter meaning (no syntax for the comma list beyond the schema, no state validation notes).

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 the resource (current FMCSA events: granted, applied, insurance_lapse) and the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what data it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from new_trucking_authorities_sample, but the 'fresh' vs 'sample' sibling naming plus the 'up to 300 records' hint largely carries that.

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?

Lists available filters and their defaults, which implies how to narrow a query, but never says when to pick this tool over new_trucking_authorities_sample or why a caller would want fresh vs sample data. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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