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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the external source register, that results are TTL-filtered, and the licensing constraint (MBIE Agreement cl 4.5-4.6). The 'any person in the NZXplorer database' scoping is also consistent with openWorldHint=false.

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 data source, then coverage, then when-to-use. Mostly waste-free, but the trailing 'Uses person slug' sentence duplicates the schema and could be dropped.

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?

Output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described. For a single-parameter, read-only lookup the description covers source, filtering rule, and selection context; nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents slug (including the 'john-smith' format and its shared.people origin). The description's 'Uses person slug' adds essentially nothing beyond the schema; 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?

Specific verb (check) plus resource (insolvency/bankruptcy history), names the backing source (MBIE Insolvency Register) and the three record types covered (bankruptcy, no-asset procedures, summary instalment orders). An agent can distinguish this from near neighbours like get_director_due_diligence or get_litigation_history without opening the 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?

Explicit use cases are given: insolvency history, bankruptcy status, financial fitness to serve as director, and due diligence screening. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative tool for adjacent checks, so it stops short of a 5.

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