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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closedWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: nothing is stored, no messages are sent, the drafts are review-only, and the calculations are indicative rather than legally binding.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the input requirement, then a second sentence carrying the non-storage/no-send behavioral disclosure. Dense but every clause contributes; 'UK B2B chase wording' is jargon but precise enough to be useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations plus full schema coverage carry most of the remaining burden. What is missing is only marginal: how malformed CSV or unparseable dates are handled, and that the 50-row cap is a hard limit.

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%, so all five parameters (including as_of_date, draft_stage and the 50-row cap) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the CSV and Bank Rate are 'user-supplied', adding no format or edge-case detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Analyse a user-supplied aged-debtors CSV') and names the concrete outputs (chase wording, statutory-interest and fixed-compensation calculations). It is clearly distinguishable by the 'analyse' verb and CSV input from the get_* siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied through the required inputs (caller must supply CSV text and a Bank Rate) and the 'review-only' framing, which tells the agent the output is not sent anywhere. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or routing to get_credit_control_brief or get_receivables_health for the non-CSV path.

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