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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the pagination behavior: it discloses that the call returns a single page plus vendor pagination metadata rather than the full set. That is genuine operational context an agent needs, though it doesn't describe the shape of the returned items.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding, and the resource identification comes first. The style is telegraphic ('Property and unit certificates, type, expiry date and status') rather than fully grammatical, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back, but it only says 'returns data plus the vendor pagination'. The pagination caveat is valuable, yet the return payload is left undifferentiated beyond the field list, leaving a gap for a list tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (page, limit, sort, direction) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and the pageCount guidance. The description adds only the general pagination warning and no per-parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource (property and unit certificates) and enumerates the fields returned (type, expiry date, status), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling arthur_get_certificate without opening the schema. The listing verb itself is only carried by the tool name/title rather than stated in the description text.

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?

Usage is only implied by the note that this is 'one page, not the whole portfolio', which hints at iterative paging. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus arthur_get_certificate or any of the other list_* siblings, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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