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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds content scope but says nothing about whether results are cached, how the hour-behind live lag applies, or how speeches are bounded in time — context the one parameter hints is relevant.

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, front-loaded with the resource, and every clause enumerates a distinct piece of returned content. No filler or repetition of schema material.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully doubles as a return-value preview by listing the roster fields. The remaining gap is the freshness/lag model, which affects whether the agent should spend credits on `fresh`, but for a zero-required-parameter read tool this is largely 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 coverage is 100% and the single `fresh` parameter is documented at length in the schema (credit cost, lag behavior, no-key no-effect). The description contributes nothing about it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource (FOMC roster) and enumerates the content returned: governors and presidents, who votes this year, lean, and upcoming speeches. That is specific enough to distinguish it from macro-data siblings like get_rate_odds or get_economic_calendar, though it never pairs the resource with an explicit retrieval verb.

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?

Usage is only implied by the content list — an agent can infer 'call this when you need FOMC membership'. There is no statement of when to prefer it over adjacent tools (get_economic_calendar for speech timing, get_rate_odds for policy expectations) and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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