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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: the diff is a sentence-level redline with date and roll-call lines deliberately excluded, and include_text controls whether full text is returned. It does not mention latency or freshness beyond the 'most recent released' default already in the schema.

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-loads the resource and its payload, then closes with concrete questions it answers; every clause carries information. It is a single dense sentence plus a short query list, with no filler, though it is on the long side.

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 values, and it does so thoroughly — rate decision fields, vote tally with dissenters, implementation-note URL, and the diff structure. An agent knows what it will get back without calling it.

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 the schema already documents date, compare_to, and include_text including their defaults. The description reinforces what the diff represents and the compact-answer use of include_text, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the 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+resource (retrieve the FOMC post-meeting policy statement) and enumerates exactly what is parsed out of it — target range, hold/cut/hike, basis points, vote tally, dissenters, implementation URL, and a diff. This clearly separates it from fomc_minutes, fed_speeches, and fomc_calendar.

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 trailing question set ('what changed in the latest Fed statement', 'did the FOMC cut rates', 'who dissented') gives clear usage context that routes a user's intent to this tool. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like fomc_minutes or fed_speeches.

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