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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavior beyond them: cleaned output, a deterministic stable reference that stays consistent across trades, and an explicit "Flow Pack stores nothing" guarantee.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the text then drifts into cross-product branding (Spark Pack, Nero Work, "the agent job exchange for trades") that adds little to tool selection and invocation. About a third of the wording could be trimmed without losing decision-relevant information.

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 single required nested object with no output schema, the description does explain the return (cleaned details plus a computed reference). What is missing is behavior on partial or invalid input — e.g. what happens when the optional nested fields are absent — which matters because the tool's value depends on having enough data to compute a reference.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining how `nero_trade_ref` is derived (licence_body gas_safe plus Gas Safe number, or company number) and that the object is reused as input to other tools. It still does not mention the category defaults or field-level optionality nuances, so it is not exhaustive.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Checks the business's own details") and enumerates exactly which fields are covered plus the computed `nero_trade_ref`. It doesn't compare itself to any sibling tool, and "checks" is a slightly fuzzy verb for what is effectively a normalize-and-compute operation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 useful context — pass the same object as `trade` to the other tools to prefill records, and nothing is stored by Flow Pack — which implies the intended call pattern. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the sibling check tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are spelled out.

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