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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the result (coverage determined per place and per line of work), which is useful context beyond the schema, but says nothing about prerequisites, whether this is a read-only lookup, or any limits. For a low-risk query tool this is only partially sufficient.

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?

It is short — two sentences with no filler — but the structure is back-to-front: it leads with an awkward return-value clause and buries the actionable instruction second. The opening sentence is grammatically fragmentary, which costs readability at the exact point where clarity matters most.

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?

The tool is simple (one fully documented parameter, an output schema that presumably explains the coverage result), so a terse description is defensible. However, the concept of 'per line of work' is never explained, and the purpose phrasing is ambiguous enough that an agent cannot be fully confident about what it is calling. Adequate but with 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the accepted location formats. The description's 'town, county, state or address' merely restates that list (and omits ZIP code) without adding syntax, normalization, or ambiguity-resolution guidance. 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?

The description conveys the domain meaning of the tool (on-site vs remote coverage, per line of work) but never states the action verb — an agent must infer that this is a lookup/check rather than a write. It distinguishes itself from siblings by topic (location coverage), which is better than a tautology, but the phrasing 'Whether we work on site or remotely for a place' reads as a return-value statement rather than a purpose statement.

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?

'Give a town, county, state or address' is input formatting guidance, not when-to-use guidance. There is no mention of the alternatives among siblings (request_inquiry, company, read_page) or of any condition that would select this tool over them. The agent is left to infer the trigger scenario entirely.

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