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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the fallback response for an un-researched council (researched: false, plus region and landlord register window), which tells the agent how to handle a partial hit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the 'Use when' trigger and then the return shape and edge case. The standalone 'Read-only.' sentence duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and earns little, a minor bit of redundancy.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so (wards, dates, fees, council sources) while also covering the degenerate case of an un-researched council. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents that it accepts a slug or name with the same examples. The description's 'Pass a slug such as southwark or a name such as Birmingham' largely restates the schema, so no meaningful value is added beyond the structured field.

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 names a specific resource (a council's licensing schemes in England) and a clear verb action (returns every scheme with wards, dates, fees and sources). The England/council-licensing scope is distinct enough from the rule-oriented siblings (get_rule, search_rules, check_address) that an agent can route correctly.

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?

'Use when someone asks about a council's licensing schemes in England' gives a clear triggering context. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative sibling, but the domain is narrow enough that misuse is unlikely.

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