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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing provenance — each fact carries a source and the month it was checked — but says nothing about behavior for an unrecognized town or whether results are cached/partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with 'Verified local facts' and then enumerates coverage; every clause carries information. The long comma-separated list is dense but not padded.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does so thoroughly, including the source/date metadata attached to each fact. The remaining gap is failure behavior for towns without a Crestway page, which matters for a single-parameter lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the single town parameter is documented with a length bound and example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only hints at a constraint ('a town's Crestway skip hire page in England'), implying coverage is limited to towns that have such a page, but never states it explicitly.

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 precisely and enumerates its contents: guide prices, permit fee/timeline/application, recycling centres, bulky and garden waste services, fly-tipping fines, and FAQs. It does not, however, distinguish this consolidated lookup from siblings like skip_prices or how_to_book, whose subject matter it overlaps.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call town_skip_facts for a price question or skip_prices instead, despite the listed contents covering price and booking-permit topics.

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