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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two useful behavioral traits — a 2-credit cost and newest-first ordering — that are not in the schema. However, it does not state what happens when 'query' is omitted (all three parameters are optional), what the result records contain, or any pagination/volume limits. That leaves significant behavioral gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 plus a cost parenthetical — every element (source, notice types, match mode, ordering, price) adds information and there is no filler. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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 three-optional-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description should explain default behavior when no filters are supplied and roughly what a notice record looks like. It covers cost and ordering but leaves those gaps, making it only adequate.

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 the schema already documents 'days', 'limit' and 'query' including their ranges. The description only adds that matching is free-text ('query') and that results are ordered newest-first, which loosely relates to 'days' but gives no default or interaction detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 source and resource (Gazette insolvency notices) and enumerates the covered notice types (winding up, administration, liquidation, bankruptcy), which clearly separates it from generic siblings like company_filings or news_search. It also establishes retrieval mode ('by free text') and ordering ('newest first'), though it never uses an explicit verb like 'search' or 'list'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to pick this over company_search, company_filings, or legislation_search when investigating a distressed company, and no exclusions are given. The only implied usage comes from the enumerated notice types.

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