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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact fields returned (full scheme breakdown, scores, inspection date, local authority code, business type taxonomy), providing transparency beyond annotations.

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 a single, informative sentence that avoids redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, though a slight restructuring could improve readability.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope, though it could explicitly mention that the ID is obtained from search results.

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 only one parameter with a comprehensive description (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('record', 'breakdown') and explicitly lists the types of scores (hygiene/structural/management) and other details. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling search tool by emphasizing 'full scheme breakdown' and 'exact inspection date'.

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?

The description implies that the tool is used after obtaining an FSA ID from 'establishment_search' results. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools (search vs. detail) provides sufficient guidance.

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