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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the single most non-obvious trait: this endpoint is unimplemented and invoking it has a side effect (recording a requirement). It does not describe what the call actually returns (error, acknowledgement, empty payload), which is the remaining gap for an unannotated tool.

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 clauses with the critical caveat front-loaded before any promise of capability — exactly the right ordering for a stub tool. No filler sentences.

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 two-parameter probe with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the decisive fact an agent needs before calling. The only omission is the shape of the response after 'Calling records the requirement', which would fully close the loop.

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 nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema 'descriptions' are literally the parameter names ('name', 'company_number'), adding no semantics. The description's phrase 'for a monitored entity' only hints that the pair identifies an entity; it does not explain whether both are needed (required count is 0) or how they relate.

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?

Names a specific resource ('structured Gazette insolvency notices ... per event') for a specific scope ('a monitored entity'), which distinguishes it from siblings like adverse_media or charge_register. The leading qualifier 'Roadmap probe, not yet served' reframes what the tool actually is, but the substantive purpose is still legible.

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 tells the agent the essential usage fact — calling it does not retrieve notices, it records a requirement — which prevents wasted calls or misinterpretation of an empty result. However, it never says what to do instead when insolvency data is actually needed; with siblings like request_data or registry_doc_fetch present, an explicit pointer is missing.

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