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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world behavior, yet the description adds real context: cursors bind to pinned local windows (so filter resubmission matters), status semantics vary by entity, and disclosure records carry no implication of wrongdoing. It omits any mention of the deferred record_handle workflow, but against annotation coverage this is a solid additive contribution.

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?

Three compact sentences with the mode distinction front-loaded and no filler. Some phrasing is opaque jargon ('pinned local windows', 'retrieve one registration principal, short-form or document collection') that costs a little clarity for its density.

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?

With 13 parameters, an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description handles the primary search/detail split, cursors and status caveats adequately. However, the deferred record_handle / record_path / record_offset retrieval pattern — a non-obvious two-phase workflow for this tool — gets no mention at all, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool of this complexity.

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, but the description adds genuine semantic meaning beyond the schema: that cursor continuation is pinned to a local window and that identical status values mean different things for registrants vs foreign principals. Navigation parameters (record_path, record_offset, record_limit) are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States specific verbs (search / retrieve) and specific resources (FARA daily registrant or foreign-principal snapshots, registration detail collections), which lets an agent distinguish this FARA-oriented tool from the lobbying-focused siblings like search_filings and search_lobbyists. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 FARA/disclosure framing implies when the tool applies, and 'principal status differs from registrant status' hints at a selection consideration. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance, and nothing routes the agent between this tool and the sibling search tools.

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