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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the payment mechanics that materially affect invocation: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the source and scope, then the two query modes, then pricing. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be re-explained, and the description covers scope, both query paths, and pricing. The one gap is that no params are required, yet the description never states that at least one of mc/dot/name/state must be supplied.

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 schema already states that mc/dot return the full record with complaints and name/state produce a list, so the description mostly echoes the schema. It adds only the 'last four years by category' detail on the return payload.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: household-goods complaint history for US interstate movers from FMCSA's Protect Your Move. It is clearly scoped to movers/complaints, which distinguishes it in spirit from gov_fmcsa_carrier_safety, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

It clearly branches usage modes: by USDOT/MC you get the full record with complaints, by name or state you get a matching list with location and fleet size. This tells the agent which selector produces which result, but it does not state exclusions or contrast with the closely related carrier-safety tool.

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