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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the provenance (weekly Applications and Decisions / Notices and Proceedings bulletins) and an important coverage caveat that sole traders and partnerships are counted but not named.

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?

Effectively one dense sentence that front-loads the core resource and scope before the enumerations. The field list and coverage caveat are slightly packed in, but every clause earns its place.

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 values need no explanation, and the description supplies scope, source and coverage caveats. Only the unexplained 'limit' parameter leaves a small gap for a list-returning 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 coverage is 67% and the description's only parameter-relevant addition is 'optionally for one traffic area', which maps to 'area' and largely restates what the schema already documents with slugs, letters and names. The 'limit' parameter is never addressed, so the description does not compensate 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 verb+resource ('New goods vehicle and PSV operator licences granted') and scopes it to one publication month, with named source documents. An agent can distinguish it from licences_ended, tc_decisions and search_operators on the name alone.

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 implies usage context – data exists per publication month, and an optional traffic-area narrowing – but never states when to prefer this over siblings such as licences_ended or tc_decisions, nor any exclusions. Constraints are clear; routing guidance is absent.

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