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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and a closed-world corpus. The description adds real behavioral value on top: matching is a body-text substring scan over 266k+ press releases since 2009, which tells the agent to expect loose/false-positive matches rather than entity-resolved results. It stops short of describing result caps or ordering.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then coverage, then match mechanics and corpus bounds. Every sentence carries distinct 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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, matching semantics, and corpus scope adequately. Minor gaps remain around result volume, ordering, and whether press releases are the only source type, but nothing essential to invocation 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by clarifying that matching happens on body text via substring, not on a canonicalized company identifier — a distinction the terse schema description ('Company name (substring)') does not convey.

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 a specific verb and resource ('DOJ press release search for one company') and enumerates the enforcement categories covered (FCPA, antitrust, healthcare fraud, environmental crimes). This cleanly separates it from doj_recent (recency-based) and cfpb_by_company (different agency), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 one-company framing gives clear context for when to reach for this tool versus a general search. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., doj_recent or courts_by_party) or states when this tool is the wrong choice, so routing still requires inference from the sibling list.

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