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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does meaningful work: it discloses Blind Mode privacy behavior, that only company-level facts are retained, that filters AND-combine, and that each call costs 1 credit. It does not cover pagination or response format, but the core safety and cost behaviors are explicit.

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?

Three focused sentences with no fluff: resource first, then behavior and cost. Every clause earns its place and essential constraints are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and eight parameters, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. Notice_code and notice_type are left undefined, and there is no description of response shape, pagination defaults, or error behavior.

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 compensate. It explains q and the AND-combination of filters, but provides no additional meaning for company, notice_code, notice_type, published_at_after/before, page, or per_page.

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 resource: the latest corporate insolvency notices from The Gazette, with concrete examples of included notice types. The domain ('corporate insolvency') and official source distinguish it from generic UK data query siblings.

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 establishes clear context for when to use the tool: when UK corporate insolvency notices are needed. It also gives practical query guidance (filters combine with AND; q searches all text fields), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions.

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