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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the text is split into named sections and a section filter returns only that section's text, plus the implicit default of returning the latest release. No pagination or size caveats are given.

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 the resource and its section breakdown, followed by tight representative queries. The section enumeration is somewhat long but each element earns its place by telling the agent what can be filtered.

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 carries the burden of explaining return shape, and it does so by describing the sectioned full text and the filtered-section behavior. An agent knows what it will get and what the default date resolves to. Minor gaps remain around result size and whether section text is verbatim.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema with formats, examples, and defaults. The description only restates the existence of an 'optional section filter', adding no syntax or behavior beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (FOMC meeting minutes from the Federal Reserve Board) and enumerates the section structure the tool returns. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fomc_statement, fomc_calendar, and fed_speeches, which cover different artifacts.

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 three example questions ('what did the FOMC minutes say about inflation', 'summarize participants' views', 'who attended the June FOMC meeting') give concrete when-to-use context. However, it never explicitly rules out or routes to alternatives such as fomc_statement or fed_speeches.

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