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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the official source, normalized schema, Blind Mode privacy feature, AND combination of filters, q searching all text fields, and credit cost. It does not describe the response shape or pagination behavior, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: resource, source, normalization, privacy mode, query semantics, and cost are each conveyed in short sentences with no filler. Every clause adds useful information.

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?

The description is adequate for a query tool, but without an output schema or detailed parameter documentation, an agent would still be guessing about returned fields, how authority should be specified, and whether results have meaningful pagination or ordering. These are nontrivial gaps for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 adds meaning for q ('searches all text fields') and states that filters combine with AND, but it does not explain authority, reference, decision_date_after/before, or pagination fields. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description only partially fills the documentation gap.

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's resource: UK planning applications from the official planning.data.gov.uk feed, normalized to one schema. It is distinct from the sibling UK data tools by the planning domain, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling or use a clear verb like 'query' or 'return'.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as query_uk_tenders, query_uk_companies, or query_uk_sanctions. It conveys filter behavior and cost, but not the selection context or exclusions an agent would need to confidently route to this tool.

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