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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations do not: a per-call price of $0.004 USDC via the x402 payment scheme, which is critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It also enumerates the returned fields, useful since there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the cost disclosure. Nothing is redundant, though the field enumeration in the first sentence is somewhat list-like and could be trimmed.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does well to list returned fields and disclose the x402 price. However, it leaves the limit parameter and the required name format undocumented, which an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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 carry the parameter burden. It implies the required 'name' input is a search term but says nothing about expected format (full name, partial match, ordering), and the optional 'limit' parameter is never mentioned at all.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('the UK register of disqualified company directors'), which clearly separates it from neighboring lookups like uk_company, uk_officer, or uk_companies_search. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast against, so it doesn't quite reach the 5 tier.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the other UK-registry tools (uk_company, uk_officer, uk_filings, uk_kyb). The only usage signal is the implied 'by name' search mode, which is weak guidance for an agent choosing among many similar-sounding siblings.

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