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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say the tool checks completeness and lists missing inputs, and frames itself as a pre-call guard. It does not state side effects, whether it performs any decision logic, or what happens with the provided_facts object.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and avoids unnecessary detail. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'price/cost', and the exclusion list could be tightened, but overall it is efficient.

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 and no annotations, the description should clarify parameter meaning and return value more fully. It only says 'list missing inputs' and leaves the relationship to premises_licence_preflight implicit, which is a notable gap for a tool with minimal structured metadata.

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%, and the description never explains 'authority' or 'provided_facts'. An agent can guess from names that authority is a jurisdiction and provided_facts is a fact bundle, but there is no guidance about expected values, structure, or how they are used.

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 action: check whether applicant/venue inputs are complete enough to run the paid premises decision, and list missing inputs. It clearly distinguishes itself from price/cost and general-information queries, though it does not directly clarify how it differs from the similarly named sibling premises_licence_preflight.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Select ONLY to check...') and gives an explicit when-not list. It also names premises_licence_info as the destination for price/cost questions. However, it does not explicitly route to the intended decision tool or fully map exclusions like 'service capabilities' to alternatives.

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