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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the description's added value is in the operational constraints it discloses: the feed source, the recent-items-only window, the absence of transcript text, and the 1-credit cost. It doesn't specify how 'recent' is bounded or whether results are paginated, which keeps it off a 5.

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 core purpose, then a compact field list, then scoping caveats and cost. 'Tracks Fedspeak at its source' is light marketing flavor that adds little, though it does hint at provenance; otherwise every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields and discloses the credit cost, source feed, and scope limits. Remaining gaps are the recency window definition and result-volume behavior, which are relevant for a 'latest'-style feed with up to 100 results.

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%, with the speaker parameter already documented as a surname example (Waller) and limit documented as 1-100 default 10. The description confirms speaker filtering is optional and by surname, but adds no new meaning and never mentions the limit parameter beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Latest speeches by Federal Reserve Board members ... from the Board's speeches feed') and enumerates the returned fields (speaker, title, date, venue, link). The scope qualifier 'Board members only (not Reserve Bank presidents)' separates it cleanly from related Fed tools like fomc_minutes_latest or fed_monetary_policy_releases.

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?

Explicit exclusions are given ('Board members only', 'recent items only', 'no transcript text'), which tells the agent when this tool is NOT appropriate. What is missing is a named alternative for those excluded cases (e.g., where to go for Reserve Bank president speeches or full transcripts), so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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