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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: idempotency window (same email within 24h returns the SAME key), the guardrail that the tool mints nothing without confirmed terms, the UK PAF cap of 5 lookups per UTC day, the 90-day evaluation window, and the required post-call auth reconfiguration. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the value proposition, then the mandatory consent workflow, then operational limits and next steps. Every block is actionable, though the multi-paragraph form is longer than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the two important return cases (a key, or the legal links when consent is missing) plus downstream configuration. It stops short of describing response shape or error handling for a malformed email, which an agent would otherwise have to discover at call time.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: accept_terms is fully explained (must be true only with user confirmation, otherwise the tool returns links), and email's idempotency semantics are stated. It adds no format guidance for email and does not restate the default of accept_terms=false, keeping it short of a 5.

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 (get a free Acuris trial API key) with scope qualifiers (100 credits, 7 days, no card/signup). It is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which are all address/geocoding utilities.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions for use: you MUST show the user both legal links and obtain explicit confirmation before setting accept_terms=true, and it names the fallback behavior (returns links, mints nothing) when that confirmation is absent. It also tells the caller what to do after receiving the key (reconfigure the connection with the Bearer header or ACURIS_API_KEY).

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