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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it states the data source (federalregister.gov via GPO/NARA), that no auth is required, and the return fields. It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but the annotations plus the description provide solid transparency for a read-only search tool.

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-loaded with the core purpose and filters, followed by return fields and data source. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only search tool with 8 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the resource, filters, return fields, data source, and auth requirements. It could mention pagination defaults or the meaning of the 'order' enum values, but the schema already covers those, and the output schema handles return values.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds a bit of context by listing the filter dimensions (term, agency, type, date range) and mentioning the agency_slug lookup via federalregister.agencies, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('official US Federal Register documents'), enumerates the document types (final rules, proposed rules, notices, presidential documents), and lists the filter dimensions (full-text term, agency, document type, publication date range). It also names the return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like federalregister.documents.detail and federalregister.agencies.search.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when searching Federal Register documents by term, agency, type, or date range. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use federalregister.documents.detail for a specific document, or federalregister.agencies.search for agency lookup), but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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