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

Despite having no annotations, the description explicitly declares 'Read-only', lists the exact fields returned, and flags a real limitation: contact details live on the official record, not in the results. It does not discuss pagination or result ordering, but it covers the traits that most affect safe invocation.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and source, then filters, then return shape and the read-only note. No filler and nothing out of order.

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 four-parameter, all-optional search with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, filters, return fields and a safety note — enough to call it correctly. Only the pagination/limit behavior and result ordering are left to the schema, a small residual gap.

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 100%, so every parameter (body, town, limit, query) is already documented in the schema. The description's 'filter by name or firm, town or postcode start, and authorising body' restates the schema and adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond it, which is the baseline-3 situation.

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 a specific verb and resource plus the authoritative source: searching UK licensed insolvency practitioners on the Insolvency Service 'Find an insolvency practitioner' register. It also states the available filters and the returned fields, so an agent knows precisely what the tool covers without opening the schema.

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?

It states clear filtering context — by name/firm, town or postcode start, and authorising body — which tells the agent when this tool applies. No exclusions or alternatives are given, but there are no sibling tools to route against, so the absence of when-not guidance is minor.

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