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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the verdict is deterministic, published, auditable, re-weightable, and 'Never model-scored', which is crucial trust-related context. It also discloses the $0.10 USDC x402 cost and the exact response structure, going well beyond a generic summary.

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 description is dense but front-loaded: the verdict concept, rule transparency, cost, and return contract are all covered in a compact space. The rule list is somewhat long, and the 'Returns' content partially repeats the earlier verdict description, but every section is informative and none is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must define the return contract, and it does thoroughly: score range, band enum, flags with code/detail, fca object, narrative, and profile data. It also covers pricing, the deterministic rule engine, and the effect of `detail=full` on the response cap. Error cases are not covered, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor 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 the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter detail. The description does not enrich the meaning of `number` or `detail` beyond the schema, though it does imply profile-related data and the response-cap impact of `detail=full`. No deduction is needed since the schema already fully documents 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?

The description opens with a direct question, 'Should an agent trust this UK company?', and immediately defines the tool's output as a 0-100 verdict plus a low_risk/caution/high_risk band. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling uk_company_profile by stating it returns 'Everything the profile returns, plus verdict', making its role as the scoring layer unmistakable.

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 clearly frames the tool as a decision aid for whether to trust a UK company, and mentions deterministic/published rules and a per-call cost, which signal a deliberate scoring use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with uk_company_profile, uk_company_fca, or uk_company_search, nor does it state when not to use it.

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