one_year_survival

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: a significance test against the rest of Great Britain for single areas, a raised bar when testing hundreds of areas for 'UK', and the rule that only quarters with a full year of exposure are permitted. It omits any mention of result shape or how many rows the limit truncates, but with an output schema present that is a minor gap.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the two output modes, then the temporal eligibility constraint. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler, though the phrasing ('the bar is raised for testing hundreds of areas') is parenthetical and slightly compressed.

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 five-parameter analytical tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the metric definition, both modes, the significance-testing behavior, and the quarter-eligibility rule. The one visible hole is the 'limit' parameter, which neither schema nor description explains — likely the cap on council areas listed for 'UK'.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented, and the description partly repeats that (area modes, SIC bundle ids). It does add meaning beyond the schema: the constraint that only quarters whose companies have completed a full year are allowed, which governs from_quarter/to_quarter selection, plus the caveat that SIC choice can change the answer and should be reported. The 'limit' parameter remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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 precise metric — the share of companies registered in a period with given SIC codes that were not dissolved within a year — which is a specific verb-free but unambiguous resource definition. It is clearly a survival-rate tool rather than a raw count, distinguishing it from count_incorporations_still_live or registrations_against_closures. It never names a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains the two operating modes (single area vs 'UK') and the eligibility rule for quarters, which is genuine usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like compare_area_with_great_britain or registrations_against_closures, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is implied by the mode descriptions rather than prescribed.

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