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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns specific fields (names, DOBs, disqualification snippets, officer IDs) and the zero-result behavior for company names. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not exhaustively describe pagination edge cases.

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 three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return-value summary. Every sentence earns its place with no padding or redundancy.

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 simple search tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, limitations (company name returns zero), and return fields. It also cross-references a related tool for deeper details, making it contextually complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., query explicitly says 'NOT a company name'). The tool description reinforces the individual-name requirement but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Therefore 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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Check whether a named individual is banned from acting as a UK company director.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools (e.g., company, charity, or property searches) by targeting disqualified directors specifically.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this tool when asked to check disqualified, banned, or barred directors.' It further states when not to use it: 'NOT a company name, which always returns zero results.' It also points to a complementary tool, disqualified_profile, for full details, effectively differentiating search vs. profile use.

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