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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's additional statement that it 'never submits or renews a registration' reinforces and enriches those signals. It also discloses the return categories ('bounded route, fee route, findings and official evidence'), which adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it begins with the core purpose, then gives usage conditions, required inputs, expected outputs, and exclusions. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information without repetition or fluff.

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 read-only preflight tool with a detailed output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the key decision points: when to use, what to supply, what it returns, and exclusions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the top-level schema has no description for the scenario object, the nested schema fields are well-documented. The description compensates by telling the agent to 'Supply role and lifecycle action, plus own-waste/tier facts when relevant,' which maps directly to the main input fields and adds conditional guidance beyond the raw schema.

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's purpose as a carrier/broker/dealer registration lifecycle check for England, enumerating the exact lifecycle actions it covers. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying it is not for site permit changes or DWT reporting readiness.

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 tells the agent when to select the tool ('Select when the unresolved question is a new registration, renewal, detail/activity change, legal-type change, or lower-to-upper change') and when not to use it. The exclusions map directly to sibling tools like waste_permit_change_preflight and waste_digital_tracking_readiness, providing clear routing guidance.

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