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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds an example result count but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

One sentence plus an example result count. Efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured but is concise and clear.

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 6 optional parameters, an output schema exists (from context), and annotations cover behavioral traits, the description is mostly complete. It provides an example result count to set expectations. Could mention pagination or API source, but overall adequate.

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 all parameters (query, document_type, agency, posted_after, limit, sort) are already documented. The description only repeats filter types without adding new meaning, so 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'US federal regulatory documents', lists document types (rules, proposed rules, notices, presidential documents), and mentions filtering capabilities. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on Regulations.gov content, while legal.fedregister.search and legal.caselaw.search cover different document types.

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?

Description implies usage for federal regulations by specifying document types and mentioning Regulations.gov, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like legal.fedregister.search or legal.caselaw.search. No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.

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