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

The read-only annotations already cover safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a defined set of fields per document and implicitly signals that full text is not included by pointing to reg_document. It does not discuss pagination or result sorting, but this is not critical given the schema's limit parameter.

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 sentences deliver the purpose, scope, available filters, return fields, and the sibling tool for full text. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 well-documented 6-parameter search tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is searched, what filters exist, what each result contains, and where to go for full text. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds only a high-level summary of keyword, agency, document type, and date filters, which is helpful but does not go beyond the schema's existing documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Federal Register' for documents by keyword with optional filters. It lists the exact document types and clearly differentiates itself from the sibling reg_document by noting that tool is for full text retrieval.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use reg_document when full text is needed, which is key routing guidance. It does not mention the related reg_cfr_search sibling or state exclusions, but the Federal Register context makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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