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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real context beyond them: 'live from FederalRegister.gov' (freshness/source), 'Every result states its legal status (a proposed rule is never binding)' and 'official links' (return-shape disclosure where no output schema exists), plus 'No account needed' (no-auth requirement). It stops short of pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and source. The document-type parenthetical, the filter list, and the return-value note each carry distinct information, and even 'No account needed' earns its place as an auth prerequisite. No filler.

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 18 mostly-optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, source, filter surface, return content and auth requirement adequately. The main gap is that it says nothing about pagination/ordering semantics or how multiple filters combine, which matters for a tool of this breadth.

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?

At 44% schema coverage across 18 params, the description compensates well by mapping natural-language filter categories to parameters: keywords (query), agency, document type, publication/comment/effective dates, CFR title and part, RIN, docket or industry. Omitted are pagination/ordering (page, limit, order) and the 'significant' flag, so it is not fully exhaustive but clearly adds meaning over the schema text.

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+resource ('Search U.S. Federal Register documents') and enumerates the document classes it covers (final rules, proposed rules, notices, presidential documents), which cleanly separates it from the single-document sibling get_regulatory_document. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with siblings like track_federal_regulations or compare_regulatory_documents, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 enumeration of filter dimensions implies the tool is for broad retrieval and 'No account needed' covers one prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives (e.g., use get_regulatory_document for a known document, use track_federal_regulations for monitoring). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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