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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one useful behavioral note — that related corporate events are included, implying an embedded expansion — but says nothing about payload shape, missing-ID behavior, or result size, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the operation and its scope, the second supplies the prerequisite. The core action is front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the title or parameter schema.

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 trivial one-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is returned at a high level and where the input comes from. It is only slightly under-complete on error behavior and return shape, which are low-stakes here given the readOnly annotation.

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% with a single documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the schema's 'Prometiam internal ID' framing and adds the provenance hint about where to obtain the value, but contributes no format, range, or type detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb and resource ('Fetch a single insolvency / risk notice') and adds scope detail ('with related corporate events'), which separates it from list-style siblings. It stops short of disambiguating against insolvency_notices_search, another sibling that plausibly yields similar notices, so an agent cannot fully rule out the wrong retrieval tool from the text alone.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition by routing the agent upstream: 'Get an ID from insolvency_search.' That is real when-to-use guidance rather than implied. The gap is that it names only one ID source while insolvency_notices_search exists as a sibling, leaving ambiguity about whether IDs from that tool are also valid here.

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