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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds material context beyond them: the Blind Mode ingestion policy (person fields and notice text never ingested), a per-call credit cost, and the unauthenticated preview cap of 5 rows / 20 calls per day. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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 tool is, then compressed into scoping, privacy, filter and cost sentences. Slightly dense with three ideas packed into the closing sentence, but no filler or repetition.

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 partially compensates by noting 'company-level facts only' plus cost and access limits. It still leaves the return shape and the meaning of most filter parameters unstated, which is the main remaining gap for a 0-required, 8-param tool.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It explains only q (searches all text fields) and the AND-combination rule; company, notice_code, notice_type, page, per_page and the published_at bounds are left undocumented beyond their names.

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 states a specific verb (query) and resource (corporate insolvency notices from The Gazette) and enumerates the covered notice categories (winding-up, administrator/receiver/liquidator appointments, moratoria, creditor notices). The dataset is unmistakably distinct from every sibling query_uk_* tool, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 gives operational guidance: filters combine with AND and q searches all text fields, plus cost and preview limits. It never names an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, but the sibling set is disjoint by dataset, so there is little risk of misrouting.

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