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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a free preview, a hard cap of five results, and an outbound-related setting, but 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' is unexplained and it omits read-only/auth/error 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?

The description is short and front-loads the key constraints. The final phrase about Soft-Offer outbound is cryptic, but overall there is no filler and the structure is efficient.

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 simple two-parameter discovery tool with no annotations or output schema, it establishes the resource, geography, and result cap. It still leaves size semantics, exact return shape, and the unexplained outbound jargon unresolved.

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 50%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that postcode is in England and implies a five-result cap, but it does not explicitly define the size parameter or its allowed values.

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 resource and scope: CQC-regulated care locations for a postcode in England, with a maximum of five results. It is specific enough to understand the tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from cqc_pack or redeem_pack.

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, max 5' implies a limited preview use case, giving some when-to-use context. However, it never names the sibling tools or explains when to use cqc_pack/redeem_pack instead, so the choice is left to inference.

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