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

Annotations already carry the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description only needs to add context; it adds 'no auth required' and confirms the data source (federalregister.gov / GPO/NARA). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the operation and scope, then provide the most useful extras (fields, source, auth). There is no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter detail endpoint with a rich output schema and safe-read annotations, the description covers the essential decision factors: what is returned, where the data comes from, and that no authentication is needed. 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 one parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a concrete example and its origin in federalregister.search results, so the description need not re-explain it. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond 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 states a precise verb and resource: get full detail for a single Federal Register document by its document number. The scope ('single', 'by document number') plus enumerated fields distinguishes it from sibling search and inspection tools even without naming them.

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 main text clearly implies use when a specific document number is already known, and the input schema reinforces that the number comes from federalregister.search results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 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.