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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: this is a static local lookup requiring no API call, which tells the agent there is no latency or external dependency to manage.

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 core purpose, then use cases, then the static-lookup note and valid values. No filler; every clause contributes information the agent needs.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (data source, summary, weight). Minor gap: it doesn't describe the shape of the response or whether multiple presets are listed, but that is a small omission for a simple read tool.

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% and the schema already explains case-insensitivity and partial matching. The description goes further by enumerating the recognised dimension names (Crime, Deprivation, Property, etc.), which the schema lacks since no enum is defined — this genuinely helps the agent construct a valid call.

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 and resource ('Explains how one scoring dimension is computed') and enumerates the content returned: data source, scoring summary, and per-preset weight. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like score_postcode or get_area_signals, which produce scores rather than explain them.

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?

Gives concrete use contexts ('answers why did Crime score 80', 'supports procurement or model-risk review') and clarifies it is a static lookup with no API call. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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