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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states the data source ('official weekly CQC care directory'), the stable key (CQC location id), ingest-time exclusions (phone numbers dropped, registered-manager names never ingested), and per-call cost. It does not cover pagination behavior or what an unfiltered query returns, but the disclosed provenance and limitations are material and add real value.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, provenance, data limitations, filter semantics, and cost. The most important scoping information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 15-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, provenance, freshness, data exclusions, filter semantics, and cost — a strong base. It omits pagination conventions (though page/per_page defaults live in the schema) and the distinction between postcode and outward_code, which are minor gaps given everything else covered.

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 is the only semantic source for the 15 parameters. It maps several parameters to data fields (region, local_authority, service_types, specialisms, provider, latest check date), explains AND combination, and clarifies that q is a full-text search across all fields. However, postcode, outward_code, website_present, page, and per_page receive no explanation.

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 opens by naming the exact resource — health and social care locations regulated by the Care Quality Commission in England — and enumerates its contents (service types, specialisms, provider, address, local authority, region, latest CQC check date). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that query different UK datasets such as schools, charities, and companies.

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?

It explains the core query semantics — 'Filters combine with AND; q searches all text fields' — and states the credit cost, which an agent needs before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the unambiguous dataset scope in the opening sentence makes selection among the sibling query tools straightforward.

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