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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the free-plan 7-day window, the X-API-Key header and where to obtain it, the caveat that INSOLVENCY_STATUS can record any proceeding stage, and exactly which act types are excluded from the list. These are non-obvious behavioral constraints an agent could not infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with what the digest returns before the caveats, and every sentence carries information. The parenthetical list of excluded act types and the multi-clause insolvency paragraph are dense but earn their place; slightly heavier than needed for a single-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?

Although there is no output schema, the description specifies the shape of the response (totals by event type, top provinces, entries with company and province only). Combined with the auth and plan-window notes and the interpretation caveat, nothing an agent needs to call or read this tool correctly is missing.

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% and the single `date` parameter is fully documented there, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and the omit-for-latest default. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 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 resource and scope: a digest of one BORME publication day, with totals by event type, top provinces, and an `insolvencies` list. It enumerates exactly what the insolvency section contains and which act types it covers, so the agent can tell it apart from aggregate siblings like registry_stats or recent_signals.

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?

Clear context for use (a single publication day, omit `date` for latest) and an explicit follow-up rule: read the act payload with search_events before asserting a company was declared insolvent, with the exact parameters to pass. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative for non-day-scoped needs, which keeps it below a 5.

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