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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the shape of the payload (title, abstract, full text link, agencies, dates, docket) and the conditional extra fields for presidential documents, which helps an agent anticipate coverage.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose plus identifier first, then returned fields, then the presidential-document special case. Every sentence carries information, though the field enumeration overlaps with the existing output schema.

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 one-parameter lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The main omission is routing guidance for when the caller lacks a document number, and any not-found behavior.

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% for the single 'number' parameter, and the description only restates the same format example the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 ('Get full details') and resource ('Federal Register document'), plus the exact lookup key (document number). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_documents because retrieval is keyed on a known identifier, but it never names that alternative, so the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you already have a document number such as '2024-12345'. There is no explicit statement about what to do when the number is unknown (e.g., use search_documents to find it) and no exclusions or failure conditions stated.

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