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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it lists returned fields (accession numbers, filed/issued/posted dates, category, class/type) and discloses that a docket query surfaces related sub-dockets (ER11-4046 pulling in ER11-3872-029), a non-obvious scope behavior.

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 core action, followed by concrete examples; nearly every clause earns its place. Slightly long, and the closing example partially duplicates the schema's examples block.

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?

No output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the sub-docket behavior, and annotations cover safety. For a single-required-param read tool this is essentially complete; only pagination/result-count expectations go unmentioned.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds param-level value: the docket format example and the concrete invocation ferc_docket({ docket: "ER11-4046" }), plus clarification that the docket argument drives sub-docket expansion. Pagination semantics are left to the schema.

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) and resource (all filings, orders, correspondence for a FERC docket number), and enumerates the concrete case types (rate cases, interconnection agreements, tariff filings). It is clearly distinguishable from a keyword tool like ferc_search by being docket-scoped, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit use cases — "what has FERC filed/ordered in docket X", "history of docket Y", "latest filing in case Z" — which tell the agent when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to use ferc_search instead).

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