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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose real traits: Bearer auth is required, pages are metered per key per day, and an unauthenticated call returns guidance on obtaining a key. It omits whether pagination terminates or what provenance output looks like, but adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the resource scope before the operational constraints. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter paginated export with no annotations, the description covers auth, metering, page size, and error behavior. Missing only pagination termination semantics and confirmation of the response shape, which is minor for this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the page size (200) but never explains the 'page' parameter, its default, or the default pageSize, leaving half of the parameter semantics undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: export every entity of the Asbestos Survey Cost register, paginated, with provenance. This distinguishes it from filtering siblings like entities_search or entities_in, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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 phrase 'Every entity' implies a bulk/full-register export as opposed to the lookup or search tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The auth prerequisite is stated, which is useful routing context.

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