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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: bounded extract samples, unknown adoption/currentness/applicability, misleading zero-match ambiguity, and source-helper retrieval failures. It also explains the response includes a current national framework link and site_ref for chaining.

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 well structured with labeled sections for purpose, usage, returns, limitations, parameter guidance, and chaining. It is somewhat long but front-loaded and every section carries relevant operational 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?

Given the tool's complexity, rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers purpose, use case, return caveats, limitations, parameter guidance, and cross-tool chaining.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description still adds useful call guidance: provide address and development_type, use topic to focus retrieval, and pass site_ref unchanged to reuse canonical site context across tools.

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 states a specific verb and resource: review stored England local policy extract leads for a resolved authority. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as get_planning_history or inspect_research_source.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: early planning statement research, with source links where available. It also provides chaining guidance for site_ref and notes limitations, but does not explicitly say when not to use it versus specific alternatives.

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