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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying what the tool returns (compliance items with legal references, SOP guidance, case law, and grey area analysis). This goes beyond the annotation and helps set expectations, though it doesn't disclose any limitations or 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point without unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the search returns, which is critical for the agent. It covers the main use cases and provides enough context for a straightforward read-only lookup tool, though it could mention ordering or result format for full completeness.

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 100% and each parameter is described. The description enhances the query parameter by mentioning 'MIC function (CF1-CF8)' and providing examples, which adds context beyond the schema. It also aligns the 'category' parameter with 'topic' and 'licence_type' with 'licence type', reinforcing meaning.

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 clearly states the tool searches the SFC compliance checklist, specifying the dimensions (topic, licence type, MIC function) and the type of results (legal references, SOP guidance, case law, grey area analysis). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like query_regulation or search_enforcement.

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 explicitly says 'Use for questions about regulatory obligations, MIC responsibilities, procedural guidance, or compliance requirements,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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