registrations_against_closures

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the real burden and does so well: it discloses the rounding tolerance in the verdict, the weekly batching that blocks sub-year verdicts, and that area answers omit formation-agent addresses. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to interpret results honestly; only the omission of any note on what the comparison returns structurally keeps it at 4.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison and followed by scope, limits and caveats in priority order. The leading rhetorical question costs a few words but does orient the reader quickly; nothing else is padded.

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?

With an output schema present the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers scope, defaults, verdict behavior and area caveats. It does not tell the agent what to do when the question requires a sub-year verdict or a trend, which is the one informational gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema already documents area, sic_codes, from_quarter and to_quarter with defaults and formats. The description restates the defaults and adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 opening question is rhetorical framing, but the body states a concrete operation: compares companies registered against companies dissolved in a given area and period and tests which was higher. That is a specific verb pair plus resource that separates it from siblings like count_incorporations_still_live or breakdown_by_industry, though the agent has to read past the question to get there.

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?

Gives clear operating conditions: defaults to UK and the latest four quarters, sub-year periods return counts with no verdict, and the counts cannot show whether closures are accelerating. It does not name a sibling alternative for the cases it refuses (e.g. where to go for acceleration or sub-year verdicts), which keeps it short of a 5.

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