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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial context on top: the data refreshes daily, the sample deliberately omits phone numbers and street addresses, the record set expands when a state is supplied, and the full feed sits behind a $99/30-day paywall. It does not state how large the 'small sample' is or whether results are paginated or rate-limited, which is the main remaining gap.

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 signal inventory is front-loaded and the state/no-state branching is stated compactly in two parallel sentences. The trailing '$99 per 30 days. Free.' is promotional but does earn its place by clarifying the tier boundary; the only cost is that the first sentence is a dense run-on list.

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?

With a free tool, no output schema, and only one optional parameter, the description covers everything the agent needs: what the data is, what fields are intentionally excluded, how the response differs with and without `state`, and what the paid upgrade provides. No critical calling information is missing.

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 the single optional `state` parameter is documented in the schema as a two-letter code. The description goes further by explaining the semantic consequence of omitting it (national and per-state counts only) versus supplying it (counts plus a sample), which is behavior the schema alone does not convey.

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 concrete resource (daily FMCSA insurance-buying signals) and enumerates the signal types included — suspension notices with deadlines, insurer cancellations, suspended carriers, new authorities without insurance, and renewals 14-60 days out. It is clearly a retrieval/list tool, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as new_trucking_authorities_sample, whose subject matter ('new authorities') explicitly overlaps one of the listed signal categories.

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 only implied through the state/no-state behavior split and the 'Free' vs '$99 per 30 days' framing, which hints this is the trial tier of a paid feed. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing and buy_info — the obvious purchase path for the full feed — is never named, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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