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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional disclosure about data source (federalregister.gov/GPO/NARA) and lack of auth requirement adds value. It also clarifies the temporal status of returned documents. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and temporal state are front-loaded, followed by the optional filter and source/auth note. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential use case, the data source, and auth-free access. It could have explicitly referenced sibling tools for routing, but the description is otherwise complete.

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 fully describes both parameters, including max's range/default and agency's case-insensitive substring behavior. The description only repeats the agency filter option without adding semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves documents currently on public inspection, a specific Federal Register status distinct from published documents. It adds precise context ('filed but not yet officially published, available ahead of their scheduled publication date') and names the only optional filter. This differentiates it from sibling 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 explains when the tool is relevant: when the user wants pre-publication documents that are on public inspection. It implicitly distinguishes this from published-document retrieval, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear enough without formal exclusions.

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