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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool compares licensing requirements and surfaces policy differences/trade-offs, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe what a result contains, whether any side effects or authorization are involved, or what happens when fewer than two authorities are provided.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core selection rule and followed by an explicit exclusion. The Birmingham/Liverpool example is concrete without being verbose; no filler or wasted words.

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 tool with 56 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin to be fully actionable. It gives the high-level use case and an exclusion but omits required-input guidance, expected output shape, and relationship to the single-authority sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds almost no parameter semantics. It hints at 'authorities' via 'two or more councils' and at business concept via 'same bar/business concept', yet fails to explain the other required parameter (applicant_age) or any of the other 54 parameters.

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 states a specific selection use-case: cross-authority comparison of premises-licensing requirements, policy differences, or trade-offs between two or more councils. It includes a concrete Birmingham/Liverpool example and explicitly contrasts itself with single-authority compliance decisions, making its scope unambiguous.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('ANY CROSS-AUTHORITY comparison... two or more councils') and a clear when-not-to-use ('Do not use for a single-premises single-authority compliance decision'). It does not name the sibling tool(s) that should be used instead, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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