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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavior beyond them: reverse-chronological ordering, per-item type labels, titles-and-links-only (no full text), and a 1-credit cost. It does not say how far back 'recent items' reaches or whether a limit cap truncates silently.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and content types, and the return-shape sentence earns its place by telling the agent no full text comes back. The audience sentence ('For news and briefing agents...') and the trailing parenthetical cost note are slightly padded but not wasteful.

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 correctly does the work of describing the return: titles, dates, type labels, links, newest first. The remaining gap is the undefined 'recent items' window, which matters because the caller cannot otherwise tell how far back the feed goes before needing since.

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 both limit (1-100, default 10) and since (YYYY-MM-DD) are already documented; that sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the ordering ('newest first') and implies date scoping, without clarifying how limit and since interact or whether since changes the default window.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: it lists the Board's monetary policy press releases and enumerates the covered content types (FOMC statements, minutes, projections, discount rate minutes). It implicitly separates itself from news_search by framing the output as the official list, but it never names a sibling — notably fomc_minutes_latest, which overlaps on minutes.

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?

'For news and briefing agents that need the official list rather than news coverage' gives an implied audience and a soft contrast with a news source, but it never states when to prefer the dedicated fomc_minutes_latest or fomc_meeting_dates tools over this one. Usage must be inferred from the caller's own context.

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