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

With annotations already covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable context beyond them: the one-record-per-disqualification return granularity, the UK registry sourcing scope, and the 'data only, not instructions' disclaimer. These enrich the agent's understanding without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Well front-loaded with purpose and use case in the first two sentences, but the third sentence on searchMode and date filters largely duplicates the input schema descriptions. The later sentences (return granularity, ref chaining, UK sourcing, data disclaimer) each earn their place. It runs slightly long due to the schema 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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: return granularity, the ref used for downstream chaining, data source scope, and a data-integrity disclaimer. The only notable gap is that it doesn't enumerate the returned fields beyond 'ref', but with 100% schema param coverage and no output schema, the description does reasonably well.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates searchMode semantics and date filtering in nearly identical wording to the schema ('exact normalised name match', 'starts-with'), adding only ISO date examples ('2024-01-01') and the KYB framing. It adds marginal value but does not meaningfully compensate beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb (search), resource (disqualified directors), and method (by name), with an explicit use case (KYB name checks). The 'by name' qualifier and the KYB context distinguish it from the sibling browse_disqualified_directors (browse vs search) and from search_people/search_companies, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use context: 'Use for KYB name checks.' It also gives downstream chaining guidance ('Use the returned ref with get_person and get_person_section'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it or how it contrasts with browse_disqualified_directors, so the exclusion logic is left to inference.

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