registered_office_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool generates forms and returns a ZIP, and mentions optional inclusion of FDMS02. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., company must be Gibraltar-registered), whether the forms are generated asynchronously, or how the ZIP is delivered.

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 two sentences long, efficient, and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary action and output, and the second adds an optional feature. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the schema covers all parameters and there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output contents. It could be more complete by describing the return format (e.g., download link) or any side effects, but as a form generation tool, the description is sufficient.

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?

All 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by linking optional parameters (directorName, directorTitle, directorDOB) to the FDMS02 form and clarifying that 'building' and 'street' refer to new address. This helps the agent understand parameter groupings.

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 clearly states the tool generates forms to change a Gibraltar company registered office address, specifies the output (ZIP with FREG01 form, board resolution, guide), and mentions an optional form (FDMS02) for director service address update. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like annual_return or company_formation.

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 conveys the primary use case (changing registered office address) and hints at an optional related action (director service address update). While it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, the context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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