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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds operational context beyond annotations by naming the data source (federalregister.gov, GPO/NARA), stating that no authentication is required, and describing the downstream use of the returned slug.

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 three tight sentences with no filler: purpose, downstream usage, and data/auth context. The identifying information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-optional-parameter lookup tool, the description covers what the tool returns, how to use the result, the data source, and authentication requirements. The output schema handles return shape, so no further explanation is needed.

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?

Both parameters, max and query, are fully described in the input schema with defaults, constraints, and examples, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden. The description does not add meaning beyond that, so the baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search or list US federal government agencies tracked by the Federal Register,' and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling document-centric tools like federalregister.documents.search and federalregister.documents.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?

The description establishes a clear workflow: use this tool to obtain an agency slug, then pass that slug into the Federal Register search. It does not explicitly name the exact sibling tool federalregister.documents.search or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full explicitness.

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