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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: what the payload contains (publisher, notice code, publication date, party fields) and which fields may be absent (body text, court), which is exactly the data-quality caveat an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key, then the return shape, then the caveat, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries information; the only marginal slack is the phrase 'the JSON-LD linked-data record', which the output schema arguably already conveys.

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?

With a single fully-documented parameter, full annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly and what to expect back. It omits failure behavior (e.g. unknown or expired notice ID), which is the only remaining gap.

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% and the schema itself documents notice_id as the numeric Gazette ID with length bounds and its provenance from gazette_insolvency. The description restates 'numeric notice ID' but adds no format, validation, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Fetch the full legal wording of a Gazette notice') plus the addressing key (numeric notice ID), and names the sibling that produces that key. An agent can distinguish it from gazette_insolvency and from the generic fetch/search siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through gazette_insolvency first to obtain notice_numeric_id, and warns that body text and court are not guaranteed so the Gazette web page should be used for full wording. It does not, however, state exclusions relative to the other record-lookup siblings (charity_profile, company_profile, etc.).

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