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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals a hard result cap (5), a 24h cache implying potential staleness, and an outbound-marketing flag ('Soft-Offer outbound is OFF'), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

Three tight fragments with the free-preview framing front-loaded and zero filler. 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' is cryptic jargon that a reader may not decode, which slightly undercuts an otherwise lean structure.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could have said what fields come back; it also omits auth/access notes for a tool with no annotations. For a two-parameter free preview it covers the operational essentials (cap, cache, area) but stops short of complete.

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%, so both 'area' and 'size' are already documented with examples and defaults. The description only reinforces the free-tier cap on 'size'; it adds no new syntax or constraint beyond the 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?

States a specific resource ('newly incorporated UK companies') scoped to an area, with a clear mode qualifier ('Free peek'). It does not name the siblings (new_cos_pack, kyb_pack, redeem_pack) or explicitly contrast itself with them, so the agent must infer the free-vs-pack distinction.

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?

'Free peek' implies the sampling/trial use case relative to the paid '*_pack' siblings, and the size cap signals a preview rather than bulk retrieval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative to route to.

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