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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing a 24h cache, a free-result limit, and that 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF,' but it does not clarify read-only status, rate limits, or return 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 scope and limit. The final sentence about 'Soft-Offer outbound' is concise but somewhat cryptic jargon, which slightly reduces clarity despite the efficient 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?

For a simple two-parameter discovery tool with full schema coverage, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. It does not describe the returned application fields, which would be more important because there is no output schema, but the core behavior is clear.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description only adds a small example ('e.g. Doncaster') for lpaOrPostcode and restates the free max for size, so it provides marginal additional meaning.

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 states a specific resource and scope: up to 5 UK planning applications for an LPA name or postcode. The phrase 'Free peek' and the five-result cap implicitly distinguish it from the sibling pack tools, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 implies use for quick free previews by saying 'Free peek' and capping results at 5, but it never states when to use this versus planning_pack, lpa_summary_pack, or redeem_pack. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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