registration_pack

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the return format ('markdown checklist'), the pre-fill logic from the portfolio, the GATHER marking for unknown fields, and that certificates needing renewal are flagged before upload. It does not explicitly state that nothing is uploaded or mutated, but the 'prepare ... before upload' framing makes the non-destructive nature reasonably apparent.

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 purpose and output shape are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the column inventory trailing at the end where it is easy to skip. The column list is dense but functional rather than 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?

For a generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, pre-fill behavior, unknown-field handling, and return format. Remaining gaps (no explicit statement of side effects or handling of malformed portfolio data) are minor.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for the `portfolio` input by listing the optional columns (bedrooms, dwelling_type, ownership, let, occupants, etc.) that the schema only calls 'CSV text or JSON list of properties'. It says nothing extra about `today` or `organisation` beyond the schema text.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Prepare the registration pack') tied to a named external service, and enumerates exactly what the output contains (service questions, pre-fills, GATHER markers, certificate scan list). This is clearly a checklist-generation tool and is readily distinguished from the check_* and make_calendar siblings.

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 context of use is implied ('for England's Register your rental property service'), but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus check_portfolio or check_property, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the purpose sentence.

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