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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: monthly publication cadence, the field set returned, and the attribution rule that companies are named while sole traders and partnerships are counted only. That last point materially affects how results must be interpreted.

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 core resource and the optional filter are front-loaded in the first sentence, the attribution caveat follows, and the wording directive is a single tight imperative. No sentence is padding.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, return-value explanation is largely optional; the description nonetheless enumerates the returned fields. The only real gap is the absence of any pointer to sibling tools for adjacent queries, which keeps it just short of complete routing coverage.

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 67%: area and month are documented in the schema, while limit carries only default/min/max. The description's 'Optionally for one traffic area' merely restates the area parameter and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so this sits at the baseline for partially covered parameters.

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+resource: operator licences published by the Traffic Commissioners as revoked, surrendered or terminated in one month. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling new_licences by the licence-status focus, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 description notes the scope ('Optionally for one traffic area') and gives a presentation directive ('Quote the official heading; do not restate a surrender or termination as a revocation'), but never says when to choose this tool over recent_changes, new_licences or tc_decisions. Usage is implied by the resource, not spelled out.

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