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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the output includes descriptions, bureau, dates, and docket links. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description is consistent with these.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. While very concise, it could benefit from slightly more structure to highlight the two search modes, but it is not verbose.

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 primary use cases and, together with the output schema, provides sufficient context. It does not detail pagination or parameter combinations, but the annotations and schema fill in missing details. Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete enough.

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 60%, so the description partially compensates by mentioning 'exact number' and 'public API query' mapping to proceeding and query parameters. However, it does not explain limit, offset, or _apiKey beyond what the schema already provides, leaving some gaps.

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 clearly states it searches FCC ECFS proceedings/dockets by exact number or public API query and specifies the returned fields (descriptions, bureau, dates, docket links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecfs_search_filings which focus on filings.

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 clear usage context by specifying two modes: exact proceeding number or public API query. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, though the differentiation is implicit.

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