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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the corpus is global rather than docket-scoped, and full_text=false is 'faster, description-only' which signals a cost/latency tradeoff.

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?

The scope and usage conditions are front-loaded before the example, and each sentence carries information. It runs slightly long with three prose sentences plus a full example call, but there is little waste.

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 exists, so return values need not be explained, and pagination is covered by the page/limit schema fields. Scope, routing, and date-window behavior are all present; only a note on result ordering or result-size expectations is missing.

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 all six parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the since/until window semantics and supplies a worked example, but adds no syntax or meaning the schema does not already carry, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb ('Full-text search') and resource ('all FERC eLibrary filings and orders'), and explicitly states its scope boundary ('not limited to one docket'), which separates it from the docket-specific sibling. An agent can distinguish it from ferc_docket without opening either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions (keyword queries, date-bounded order searches) and names the alternative with the selecting condition: 'use ferc_docket if you do [have a docket number]'. That is a direct routing rule, not implied guidance.

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