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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is interpretive context, and it delivers real value: routine uses mean MAY disclose, exemptions do not decide a request, missing systems do not prove no records exist, and DHS does not imply ICE. These caveats materially change how an agent reports results. It does not discuss result ordering or how to retrieve full text, keeping it below a 5.

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?

It opens with the verb and resource, then layers the disambiguating caveats, which is well front-loaded. The second sentence is densely packed with five distinct caveats, but each one earns its place by preventing a specific misinterpretation.

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 an eight-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema, the description covers what the register is, which filters matter, and how to read results cautiously. It does not describe the shape of returned records or how to move from a hit to full published text, which an agent would need for a complete picture.

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 every one of the eight parameters is already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds one genuinely new detail (recipient matches exclude standard agency boilerplate) but otherwise restates the schema's wording on flags, recipient tags, and status defaults, so it adds only marginal value.

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 names a specific verb and resource (searches the MORVS Federal Files Register of Privacy Act systems of records) and enumerates the searchable dimensions and filters, so an agent knows exactly what corpus and keys are involved. It stops short of naming sibling federal_file_system, so the single-system lookup is not explicitly distinguished.

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?

Usage is implied through filter semantics and the statement that results default to active systems with source context, which tells an agent how to narrow or widen a search. However, nothing states when to prefer this over the sibling federal_file_system for retrieving one system's detail, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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