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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and closed-world profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds content-scope context by naming the specific registers returned (FCA Register, SRA, CLC, Law Society, RICS, redress schemes), but says nothing about freshness, whether it reflects live registration status, or result format.

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?

Front-loads the jurisdiction and packs the core content into one dense sentence. The second sentence about Payotte's one-firm-per-trade coverage in 20 UK areas is somewhat tangential to the tool's regulatory purpose but does bound the data source, so it earns partial keep.

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 one required parameter, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does the needed work by enumerating what the reader gets back (regulator, coverage, where to check). It is adequately complete; the only gap is not clarifying the return shape (e.g. a per-trade list of bodies) now that no output schema exists.

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 100%: the single 'trade' parameter is documented in the schema with the same enumerable list the description repeats. There is no enum constraint, so the description's restatement of valid trades is redundant rather than additive. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

States the resource (UK property professional regulation), the trades covered (estate agent, mortgage adviser, conveyancer, surveyor, valuer) and the output content (regulator/register, coverage, where to check). The 'check_professional_X' naming pattern plus the UNITED KINGDOM prefix distinguishes it from the AU/BE/BR/DE/ES/IN/IT/MX siblings. Minor ambiguity: it reads as a static regulator lookup rather than verification of a named individual, and the verb 'check' is not fully disambiguated from that sense.

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?

Usage is implied by the country in the name and the trade-scoped parameter, but the description never states when to use this versus alternatives such as verify_license_us or trouver_professionnel_fr, nor any exclusions. The trailing sentence about Payotte listings is scope information rather than routing guidance.

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