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

Annotations already cover safety behavior (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds useful context about ordering and content types, but it does not disclose data freshness, pagination behavior, or source/update characteristics beyond what the schema and annotations imply.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description remains compact. The example largely duplicates the schema examples, which is slightly redundant, but it does help demonstrate a complete call.

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 three-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying how it relates to sibling tools, but no critical invocation detail 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 three parameters are already documented with defaults, ranges, and enum values. The description’s example reinforces invocation but does not add meaning beyond the schema’s existing parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get recent FTC enforcement actions, including cases, complaints, settlements, and orders. It clearly defines recency and category scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like ftc_search_cases or ftc_case_detail.

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 clear usage context with example questions such as “what has the FTC done recently” and “what merger actions has the FTC taken this month,” plus optional category filtering. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use cases or explicitly pointing to sibling alternatives for broader or historical searches.

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