ftc_dnc_complaints

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'Search' aligns. It adds value by indicating return fields (phone numbers, dates, violation details) but does not cover pagination behavior, data quirks, or any special access requirements.

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 three sentences plus an example, front-loading the action and resource. Every sentence adds value, and the example concretely shows parameter usage without any wasted words.

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?

For a read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the domain, return fields, and a representative query. Minor gaps include pagination behavior and any data limitations, but the simplicity of the tool makes it adequately complete.

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?

All six parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the main filters and gives a concrete example, but does not add deeper semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with 'Search FTC Do Not Call (DNC) telemarketing complaints,' specifying a clear verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling complaint tools like CFPB or NHTSA complaints.

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 provides filter criteria and an example, which implies typical usage patterns. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance slightly implicit.

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