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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it reveals the paid nature (USDC on Base, $0.05/$0.02 tiers), the failure mode (HTTP 402 without payment), the success mode (JSON after X-PAYMENT), and pagination/empty-set behavior ('304 or recordCount 0'). It even flags 'Not a new SKU' to avoid product confusion. This is unusually transparent for a tool definition.

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 a dense single paragraph that mixes pricing, payment address, resource identification, and behavior into one run-on set of clauses. It is not bloated, but it is poorly structured—an agent must parse through payment details to get to semantics. Front-loading the purpose and then using a structured list for the ?id/?before/?since modes would have earned a higher score.

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 the complexity (paid API, multiple access modes, no output schema), the description covers the critical operational context: payment, 402 behavior, authentication via X-PAYMENT, and the meaning of each query parameter. It is missing an explicit statement of return format other than 'JSON', but for an agent invoking the tool this is sufficient. The edge case of an empty set is mentioned, which is more than most tools provide.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already documents each parameter, including pricing and edge cases (e.g., 'Ignored when since/before is set'). The tool description mostly restates the same semantics in prose rather than adding new meaning; the main addition is tying each parameter to the URL query string, but that is minor and already implied by the schema parameter names.

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 identifies the resource as 'FDIC institution consent-order / C&D text' and explains the plain GET returns the newest chunk, with ?id= for one official text. This makes the tool's purpose inferable, but it never states a clear verb like 'fetch' or 'list', and the opening line is dominated by pricing and payment address rather than a concise purpose statement. It is clear enough to differentiate from sibling agency-order tools by the 'fdic-orders' topic, but lacks the crisp specificity of the best examples.

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 gives explicit guidance on how to use each mode: ?id= for one official text, ?before for older chunks, ?since for newer-than-watermark, and plain GET for the newest chunk. It also explains that unpaid requests return HTTP 402 and a valid X-PAYMENT yields JSON. It does not, however, explicitly compare against sibling tools or state 'use this for FDIC orders, not for other agency orders', leaving that to inference from the tool name.

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