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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds coverage scope (~270,000 DOJ releases back to 2009), ordering (newest-first), and return content (link, components, summary). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, examples, output details, and source/limitation/alternative. Front-loaded with the core intent, though slightly longer than minimal.

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 search tool without an output schema, the description adequately specifies return fields (link, components, summary), ordering, date range coverage, and the limitation with SEC feeds. It also provides representative queries. Enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, with all three parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond examples; it does not elaborate on limit or since semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('US federal enforcement actions'), and scope ('against a company, person or topic by name'), with concrete example intents. It explicitly differentiates from SEC feeds and directs users to enforcement_recent, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit routing: DOJ press releases are searchable via this tool, while SEC feeds are recent-window only and not searchable, directing users to enforcement_recent. Gives example queries but does not mention the sibling sec_enforcement_actions, leaving a minor ambiguity.

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