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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the context of the data source scope (90+ years of records) but does not mention additional behaviors like rate limits or pagination. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value ('Search the US Federal Register', document types, filtering options, data scope). No unnecessary 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?

Given that output schema exists (not shown but declared), the description does not need to cover return values. Parameters are fully covered by schema, annotations handle safety. The description provides sufficient context about what is searchable (document types, agencies, dates). Minor gap: no mention of data update frequency, but overall complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description mentions filtering by agency, type, date, which maps directly to schema parameters but does not add new information 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 clearly states the tool searches the US Federal Register and lists specific document types (final rules, proposed rules, notices, executive orders). It also mentions filtering options and coverage span, distinguishing it from related tools like legal.fedregister.document and legal.fedregister.recent.

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 indicates when to use the tool (searching federal register records) and implicitly suggests filtering capabilities. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context of '90+ years of official federal government records' provides reasonable guidance for a search tool.

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