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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real context beyond them: facts are dated to the register, whether an operator licence continues is a Traffic Commissioner matter, and the results are companies only. It doesn't discuss pagination or how freshness interacts with the limit default.

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 core result set before secondary details, and the alternative-tool routing is placed mid-description where it is useful. Dense but nearly every sentence carries information; the disclaimer sentence is slightly less actionable but justified for a legal-status tool.

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 an output schema present, return format needn't be restated. The description covers domain, geography, ordering, exclusions and a data-freshness caveat, leaving only the undocumented 'limit' parameter as a gap. Sufficient for correct invocation.

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 50%: 'area' is well documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The phrase 'Optionally for one traffic area' reinforces the area parameter, but nothing clarifies the limit or the interaction between 'largest fleets first' and the default of 50, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 resource and scope: operator-licence holders shown by Companies House in liquidation, administration or receivership, ordered largest fleets first, with totals by traffic area and Gazette notices. It explicitly distinguishes the 'Companies only' domain and names the sibling it is not (filing_watch).

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion with a named alternative: 'Accounts overdue is not insolvency: use filing_watch.' It also states the optional per-traffic-area scoping condition, so an agent knows both when to use it and when to route elsewhere.

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