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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the Companies House source and a 1-credit cost, which matters for budget-aware agents. It does not say what happens when no insolvency cases exist or how many records are returned.

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 that enumerates the case types and the returned fields, followed by a compact cost tag. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description does the necessary work by naming the returned data (case types, dates, insolvency practitioners). Minor gaps remain around empty-result behavior and record volume, but nothing blocks 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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the schema text itself is only 'string, required'. The description adds real meaning by specifying that the string is a UK company number for Companies House, which constrains format and source beyond the schema.

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 specific resource (insolvency cases) and the qualifying input (a UK company number), plus the data source (Companies House) and the case types covered (liquidation, administration, receivership). It is clearly distinct in substance from siblings like company_charges or company_filings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them. The retrieval verb 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for checking whether a company is in liquidation/administration. There is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for overlapping financial-distress data (e.g. company_charges).

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