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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds value by explaining the returned data structure and the scheme distinction, but does not mention any operational limits (e.g., no pagination).

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, resource, and key return fields without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: listing all authorities with scheme details. It lacks information on data freshness or authentication, but these are often handled at the server level.

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?

The input schema has a single unused parameter fully documented. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool lists all UK local authorities in the FHRS/FHIS schemes, specifying the return fields (name, code, establishment count, scheme type) and explaining the difference between FHRS and FHIS. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ukfsa.establishments.search.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely operational, leaving an agent to infer that it is for listing authorities rather than specific establishments, but without clear context.

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