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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context such as 'FREE SERVICE/DISCOVERY metadata tool', 'payment-free public-AI surface', and 'fail-closed behavior', which inform the agent about access and operational expectations 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides concise, high-value usage boundaries. Every sentence earns its place by distinguishing this tool from siblings and clarifying its scope without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool is for, when to use it, when not to use it, and which alternatives to choose. No critical context is missing.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and routing, which is the relevant semantic guidance here.

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 purpose: a free service/discovery metadata tool for questions about the connector's England scope, available tools, payment-free public-AI surface, fail-closed behavior, and safety boundaries. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it is not for and steering to alternative tools.

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 lists when to use the tool and gives concrete do-not-use cases with named alternatives: waste_source_status for evidence freshness, and waste_rule_preflight or narrower tools for case-specific regulatory routes. This leaves little ambiguity about tool selection.

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