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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description is free to add the operational context: the meaning of the `ready`/`partial`/`not_ready`/`unknown` verdicts, that `partial` carries a coverage share worth reporting, constraints ("UK only", "Free"), and that every filter key is overridable with defaults and units.

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 prerequisite is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by what the payload contains, then the `area` behavior, then the reporting obligation and terms of use. No filler or repetition; the length is justified by the amount of contract it conveys.

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 only one optional parameter and an output schema present, the remaining burden is guidance on interpretation and constraints — all supplied (readiness semantics, coverage-share disclosure, UK-only, free). An agent has everything it needs to call this correctly and use the result.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: `area` is a local-authority GSS code with the concrete example E09000032 and an explicit statement of what supplying it returns (`data_ready` per strategy). It only implies rather than states the omit-the-parameter behavior, so it falls just short of full 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 names the resource precisely ("the nine sourcing strategies as data") and enumerates what each preset publishes — thesis, filters, ranking components, feature columns, data gaps, version. It distinguishes itself from sourcing_search by positioning itself as the metadata read that precedes strategy-mode search.

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 sequencing: "read this BEFORE running `sourcing_search` in strategy mode." It also states the negative case — do not run a preset over a `not_ready` authority without disclosing the missing data — and clarifies that `partial` is usable. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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