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

Beyond the read-only, open-world, idempotent annotations, it discloses a wait of about 45 seconds, the meaning of done/partial/still_working/failed, provisional-result caveats, and the fact that embedded result text is data rather than instructions. It also explains council URL fields and clarifies that the tool only reads dates and does not set reminders or report missed bins.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the Step 2 purpose and most sentences carry necessary operational or output-shape information. It is dense and runs long, but the length is largely justified by the absence of an output schema and the complexity of the status and collection structures.

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 compensates by explaining status values, collections and containers structure, date_completeness semantics, provisional results, and council URL fields. It gives an agent enough context to call the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful workflow meaning: postcode is required and the property identifier should come from the field named in required_input, normally property_id from the chosen candidate. It does not add much for the optional address fields beyond what the schema already says.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it looks up collection dates for the one property the user chose. It clearly positions itself as Step 2 after address selection and distinguishes its role from find_addresses and check_lookup.

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 explicit call conditions: use after the user has chosen a property, send postcode plus the field named in required_input, and use check_lookup for still_working rather than calling this again. It also states what not to do, including never guessing or choosing a property for the user.

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