ons_geo_release_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool combines multiple sources and resolves current package state, which implies a read-only aggregation. It does not disclose output shape or potential latency from combining multiple sources, but with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Audit ONS UPRN release freshness') and then lists the four sources. It is compact and information-dense, though the list of sources is somewhat long and could be trimmed or formatted for readability.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown in detail) and no required parameters, so the description need not explain return values. However, the description does not mention what the audit result looks like, whether it returns a report or a status, or how the 'current package resolution' is determined. For a diagnostic tool, a bit more context on the output would help, but the presence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 0%, but the schema has only two parameters: 'tool' (a const) and 'timeout' (a number with default 30). The description does not need to explain 'tool' since it is fixed, and 'timeout' is self-explanatory. With zero required parameters and a trivial schema, the description carries little burden; the baseline 4 for minimal params applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('ONS UPRN release freshness'), and lists the four data sources it combines. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ons_geo_cache_status or os_downloads_list_products. The domain-specific jargon (UPRN, AddressBase epoch) is meaningful to the intended audience.

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 implies a diagnostic/audit use case but does not state when to use it versus alternatives such as ons_geo_cache_status or os_downloads_list_products. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, but the audit framing gives enough context for an agent to infer it is for checking release freshness rather than querying geometry or downloading data.

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