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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it reveals cost tiers for search, individual text, page, and import-alert table, and states that hits contain the door, id/page to buy, and fetchedAt/asOf. It also discloses that letter bodies and full import-alert table are not returned, so an agent knows exactly what to expect.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the long list of caches is justified by the need to define cross-door scope. The phrase 'Not a paid SKU' is slightly redundant with 'Free' and the pricing sentences that follow, but overall every sentence contributes useful information.

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 one-parameter search with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains result fields, pricing for follow-up retrieval, and special import-alert behavior. The only missing element would be concrete examples of q values or sorting, which are not essential for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter q is documented in the schema with a clear description of accepted inputs (firm, FEI, CMS, etc.), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with 'Free cross-door search of official caches' and enumerates eleven specific cache types, naming the verb (search) and resource. This clearly differentiates it from single-door sibling tools like warning-letters or fmc-orders by emphasizing the cross-door scope and the metadata-only result structure.

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 the search is free, lists what a hit contains, and notes that official text retrieval is a separate paid GET ?id= action. It also explicitly excludes letter bodies and the full import-alert table, signaling when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't name sibling tools as alternatives, so the routing relies on inference rather than explicit guidance.

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