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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It discloses the output composition (share capital, matching cash, zeros everywhere else), the units (major units), and the efficiency benefit ('collapses the whole form to one call'). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of 'figures' strongly implies retrieval rather than mutation.

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?

The description is only two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds useful information: the figure composition, the dormant-company context, the one-call benefit, and the unit convention.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context about what the tool returns and when to use it. It could be more complete by explicitly stating the response format or read-only nature, but the low complexity and clear description make it mostly sufficient.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter, shareCapital, including its type, default, description, and exclusivity constraint, so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats the 'major units' detail but does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning the complete set of figures for a dormant company, specifying share capital, matching cash, and zeros elsewhere. It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing the dormant-company scope and the one-call collapse of the form. This is specific enough for an agent to understand exactly what the tool provides.

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 gives clear usage context: it applies to dormant companies, and it references the register's indication of when last accounts were filed dormant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition for when this tool is appropriate is clear.

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