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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical, non-obvious trait: this is a stub whose only effect is recording a requirement, not returning authorisation data. It stops short of saying what a call actually returns (confirmation, error, empty payload), which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

Two short sentences with the implementation status front-loaded before the subject matter. Nothing is padded and the critical caveat comes first.

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 zero-side-effect stub with no output schema the description covers the essentials (unimplemented, records demand), but it leaves the agent unsure what a call returns and whether a real alternative exists in the sibling set, which matters given the array of registry tools available.

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 100% (frn, firm), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion of firm or individual lookup, and there is no 'individual' parameter, so that phrasing is slightly mismatched; it also does not say whether frn or firm should be preferred, or why no parameter is required. Given zero required params, guidance on calling with an empty payload would have helped.

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 names a specific resource (FCA register authorisation status for a firm or individual) but immediately reframes it as an unimplemented placeholder. An agent can tell what the tool would do and that it currently does not serve results, though the phrase "roadmap probe" is internal jargon and no sibling is named.

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?

"Not yet served" and "calling records the requirement" imply when this should be called (demand signalling, not real lookups), but there is no explicit when-not statement or named alternative such as request_data for actually obtaining the data. Routing 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.