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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are capped at 50 rows and which fields the query matches, but says nothing about permissions, ordering, default limit, pagination, or return shape beyond the row count.

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?

A single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and fields, ending with the result cap. It wastes no words, though packing every detail into one sentence slightly reduces scannability.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers matching fields, filter formats, and the row cap, but omits what the returned rows contain and pagination behavior. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for region (accepts id or name) and service (accepts slug or name), and ties q to a set of searchable fields, but leaves limit semantics largely to the schema's min/max and does not explain the default.

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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (entities of the Roofing Quotes UK register) and enumerates the searchable fields, so an agent knows exactly what it queries. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like entity_lookup or entities_in, which is the main gap.

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?

The description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as entity_lookup, entities_in, or entities_export. The optional region/service filters imply some scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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