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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful transparency about snapshot-date access, the regulator's own ordering, returned URLs, and explicitly clarifies that this is not a Ranked licence finding.

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 structured and mostly efficient, but the final disclaimer about not being a licence finding is repeated with similar wording earlier. Still, it remains readable and front-loads the core action and scope.

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 helpfully states that each row includes the register's statement, hub_url, feed_url, and place_url where applicable. It also defines what a register row is. Minor gaps remain around response shape and pagination details, but the core context is covered.

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?

Only the 'category' parameter is described in the schema; 'regulator' has an enum but no explanatory text, and 'limit'/'offset' are left implicit. With 25% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the category filter but leaves standard pagination and regulator semantics underspecified.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'entries on a Nigerian regulator's register', with the regulator and optional licence-class filter. It also distinguishes itself from a ranking by noting the register's own order, separating it from ranking tools.

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?

Explains optional filtering and the source/order semantics, but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as ranked_check_licence or ranked_rankings. The guidance is implicit rather than a direct comparison.

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