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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact return shape (per-quarter filing records, company name as filed, whether transactions were reported to an index price publisher) and an explicit exclusion (no filer contact details), plus source provenance. It doesn't cover pagination/rate behavior, but the limit param handles volume.

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 purpose, then returns, then usage routing, then differentiation — a sensible order with no filler. It is somewhat dense and long for a two-param lookup, with several clauses packed per sentence, but every element carries information.

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 the description correctly spells out return values (per-quarter records, publisher-reporting flag) and identity scope. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% with both params documented, including the substring-vs-exact-id distinction and examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description largely restates that ("by name or FERC company id") without adding syntax or edge-case semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

Specific verb ("Find") plus resource (FERC EQR filer/seller/power marketer/utility) with two lookup keys (name or FERC company id). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings (eqr_contracts_search and ferc-elibrary) and states the identity-only scope. An agent can identify this tool's role without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: resolve a company name to company_id_ferc before calling eqr_contracts_search, or check whether/when a company filed an EQR. It also names a negative case (ferc-elibrary is docket/document search, not filer data), leaving nothing to inference.

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