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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious context beyond that: the return format (markdown document with verdict, provenance-tagged dimensions, recommendations, data sources) and the cost disclosure 'Counts as two API calls'.

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?

Purpose and geography are front-loaded in the first clause, then audience enumeration, then return format and cost. Every element earns its place, though the audience list is repeated from the schema enum and could be trimmed.

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 usefully enumerates the document's contents (verdict, dimensions, signals, recommendations, sources), so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with the two-call cost notice and the audience semantics, this is nearly complete for a 2-parameter tool; only the relationship to sibling tools is unstated.

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 100% and the audience enum is fully documented in the schema, including the exact format examples for area (postcode, place name, neighbourhood code) and the 100-character limit. The description restates the four audience values without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Writes a brief'), a bounded resource ('one place in England, Wales or Scotland') and a discriminating parameter dimension (one of four named audiences). An agent can distinguish it from get_area_signals or score_postcode, which return raw signals/scores rather than a composed audience-specific document.

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?

Usage context is implied by the audience framing (lender/insurer/retailer/investor) and the mention that it combines the signals catalogue with a scoring preset, but the description never says when to prefer this over siblings like get_area_signals or score_postcode, nor when it is overkill. No explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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