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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the ordering (newest first) and the optional restriction to a field office, plus the public US Government data source. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the use case. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundant information. It is highly efficient and structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no required fields, and an output schema present), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the data source. The output schema handles return structure details, so nothing critical 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including default and max values for page_size and example slugs for field_office. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the most recently published FBI wanted posters, newest first, with an optional field office filter. It also specifies the use case of monitoring newly added subjects, which distinguishes it from the search and by_category siblings without naming them explicitly. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides a clear use case ('Useful for monitoring newly added subjects'), which implies when to use this tool over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when searching by criteria). This is a minor gap, as the primary usage context is still conveyed.

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