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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the result ordering (newest-updated first) and exactly which fields come back, so the agent knows what to expect without an output schema.

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 what is searched and by which keys, then filters, then return fields, then a worked example. The sentences are dense but every one carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating filter types already in the 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 six-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, filter behavior, return field list, result ordering, and the handoff to ftc_case_detail. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents limit ordering, query semantics, enum meanings, and date formats. The description restates the filter set and adds a concrete example call, but adds little semantic detail the schema doesn't already contain, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (FTC enforcement cases and proceedings), enumerates the matchable keys (company, individual, case number, keyword), and names the scope (competition + consumer protection, complaints/consent orders/settlements/federal actions). This clearly separates it from ftc_case_detail, which it explicitly points to for documents.

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 clear operating context: it can be used with a query term or omitted to browse everything combined with filters, and directs the agent to pass the returned slug to ftc_case_detail for documents. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling ftc_recent_actions or stating when *not* to use it.

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