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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing the return payload (numbered inspection stages with inspector role, certificate type/form number, regulatory reference, notification timing) and the practical motivation (avoiding rework), though it says nothing about API-key failures or rate limits.

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 the core purpose, then usage trigger, return shape, and examples — every sentence contributes. The example list at the end is slightly redundant with the schema's own installation example, costing a point.

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, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return value in useful detail. For a Pro-gated, jurisdiction-dependent lookup it is nearly complete, missing only failure/auth behavior details.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by demonstrating how trade, region, and installation combine ('residential electrical installation NSW', 'gas fitting domestic kitchen UK') and by stressing jurisdiction variance. It does not explain the role enum or the api_key requirement beyond the schema, keeping it at a 4.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (returns mandatory inspection hold points, sign-off authorities, certificates, and notification requirements) with clear scope limited to a jurisdiction/installation. It is distinguishable from siblings like check_compliance and get_code_reference because it is framed around inspection stages and stop-work points rather than general code or compliance checks.

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?

Explicitly frames the usage scenario ('when a foreman or PM needs to know who must inspect, at what stage work must stop...') and gives example installation queries. It does not name alternatives such as check_compliance or get_code_reference or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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