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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default window (7 days), that results are recent-only, and that postcode/radius are optional — useful scope framing. It says nothing about return volume, pagination behavior of `limit`, or how PRO access/rate limits affect results beyond the 'PRO.' prefix.

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 clauses, zero waste, and the core resource plus its plain-English gloss come first. The parenthetical definition and the geographic filter tail are each front-loaded where an agent needs them.

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?

placeholder

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate and partly does: it defines `days` (default 7) and frames `postcode` + `radius_miles` as an optional geographic filter. `limit` is documented in neither place, and the default value for `radius_miles` or units nuance remain unstated.

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 — new winding-up petitions — and defines the jargon inline (creditors suing to wind up a company) plus the time window, so an agent can tell this apart from a general insolvency check. It never names a sibling, so differentiation must be inferred from the other tool names.

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 phrase 'early warning before a customer or supplier collapses' implies the monitoring use case, and the default of 7 days sets a reasonable starting point. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over insolvency_check, area_distress, or watchlist_check, and no exclusions.

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