ftc_hsr_notices

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating that it 'Returns notices with transaction details and dates,' which goes beyond the annotation. It also indicates filtering behavior. No contradiction exists. It doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 four lines, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by filtering options, return content, and a concrete example. Every sentence contributes value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is compact and easy to scan.

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 simple read-only search tool with a well-described schema and annotations, the description covers the core aspects: domain, filters, return content, and an example. It does not describe pagination behavior, but the schema provides page/page_size parameters. Given no output schema, mentioning 'transaction details and dates' is sufficient. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 each parameter already described (e.g., 'Company or transaction title to search', 'Results per page'). The description restates the filter parameters and gives an example (title='Google'), but it doesn't add substantial semantic meaning beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search FTC Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) merger early termination notices.' It clearly states the domain (FTC HSR) and the object (merger early termination notices), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ftc_dnc_complaints. The filter hints ('by company title or transaction number') further clarify scope.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when searching FTC HSR merger early termination notices. It specifies common filter criteria (company title or transaction number) and provides an example. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full guideline clarity. Still, the contextual domain is unambiguous.

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