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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact return fields and scope, though it does not disclose search semantics or potential edge cases like empty queries.

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 description is three concise sentences with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by return fields and a clear pointer to the full-text sibling.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and document types. The optional filters are summarized, and the alternative for full-text retrieval is identified. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool 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 already documents each parameter. The description adds a useful grouping of filters (agency, document type, publication date) but does not materially extend the parameter-level meaning already present.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('the Federal Register'), the document types covered, and the fields returned. It also differentiates itself from the sibling reg_document by explicitly directing full-text retrieval elsewhere.

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 description states both what this tool is for and when a sibling should be used: 'Use reg_document to get the full text of one document.' This makes the choice between reg_search and reg_document explicit and leaves little to inference.

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