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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds what results are returned but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination beyond the limit parameter, which is already in the schema. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not enriched beyond the structured data.

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?

Four sentences, each adding meaningful information: purpose, return fields, use cases, and filtering guidance. The description is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema (indicated), and the description covers purpose, usage, examples, and parameter semantics. No required parameters, and the optional parameters are well-explained. An agent has everything needed to call this tool 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 all three parameters documented. The description adds value by providing example docket numbers ('17-108', '22-461') and explains the sort parameter's default, which helps agents use the tool correctly without opening the schema.

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 searches FCC regulatory filings, public comments, and orders within ECFS proceedings, naming the specific verb and resource. It explicitly lists return fields (filer names, law firms, submission types, document links, dates) and distinguishes from siblings like fcc.regulatory.search_proceedings by focusing on filings rather than proceedings.

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 explicit use cases ('Use to find public comments on FCC rules, industry petitions, and official orders') and explains filtering by docket number with concrete examples. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is so distinct that the intended usage is clear.

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