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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description itself adds only the list of returned fields; the most useful behavioral caveat (feeds hold only ~20 items so the window is capped) lives in the schema, not here.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns, then filtering, then exemplar queries. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (title, speaker with official title, date, venue, URL, opening paragraph). Combined with the schema's parameter documentation, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the four parameters is already documented with defaults, limits, and format (substring match, case-insensitive). The description only restates "filter by days back and speaker surname", adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (recent speeches and congressional testimony by Fed Board governors and the Chair) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from closely related Fed-content siblings such as fomc_statement, fomc_minutes, or beige_book, leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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?

It gives concrete retrieval contexts via example questions ("what did Fed governors say this week", "latest speech by Waller", "Powell testimony") and states which filters drive selection. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but the usage context is clear.

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