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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context: the 12-month lookback for ended schemes, the fields each scheme carries, and the disambiguation behavior when multiple councils match (it returns them to choose from).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then input form, then ambiguity handling. No filler, though the enumerated return fields edge slightly toward duplication of the output schema.

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?

Covers input flexibility, match disambiguation, and the status/time window of returned schemes, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly given that a full output schema exists and needs no restating. Only the missing when-to-use-vs-siblings guidance keeps it from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a name, partial name, or GSS code with examples. The description restates this input flexibility but adds no syntax, formatting, or matching rules beyond what the schema provides, so this is the baseline 3.

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 (lists) and resource (a council's licensing schemes) and scopes the content precisely: in force, starting soon, proposed, and ended in the last 12 months, each with area, dates, fee, source link and last verified date. This is far more specific than the sibling names check_property_licensing or licensing_coverage and lets an agent distinguish it without opening a schema.

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 explains how to invoke it (council name, partial name, or GSS code) and what happens on ambiguous matches, but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like licensing_coverage or upcoming_licensing_changes. Usage is implied by the resource scope rather than explicitly routed.

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