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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses payment requirements, exact costs, HTTP 402 for unpaid requests, JSON response after a valid X-PAYMENT, and chunk/watermark pagination behavior. It also notes empty results yield 304 or recordCount 0, which is genuinely useful behavioral detail.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the URL and price before explaining retrieval modes and payment behavior. Almost every sentence earns its place; the only weak spot is the cryptic 'Not a new SKU' line, which adds little for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description covers the paid-access mechanics, parameter routing, error status, and output type, which is strong for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. However, it never describes the shape or fields of the returned JSON, and the meaning of 'chunk' is left somewhat implicit. Given the absent output schema, a bit more return-structure detail would make it complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by attaching prices to id, before, since, and plain GET, and by explaining the paid-response flow around x_payment. It does not fully clarify page semantics or cost, but the schema already describes page as 1-based newest chunk, so the combined picture is solid.

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 and operation: a paid GET that returns FRB institution C&D / written-agreement / PCA text. It clearly names the endpoint and what kind of official texts are served. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling order-retrieval tools, so it misses the last bit of clarity.

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 internal routing guidance for id, before, since, and plain GET, but it never tells an agent when to choose frb-orders over sibling tools like fdic-orders, cfpb-orders, or ncua-orders. The phrase 'Not a new SKU' is billing/operational jargon rather than actionable tool-selection guidance.

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