get_borme_summary

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden. It discloses that filtering by province is supported and that the date defaults to the most recent weekday, which covers basic behavior. However, it does not address pagination, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only (likely safe). This is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 description covers input sufficiently but lacks any indication of the output structure (e.g., format, contents of 'company acts'). Given the absence of an output schema, a brief note on return format would improve completeness. The current description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides (e.g., reiterates province filtering and date default). It does not introduce new semantic nuance, meeting the baseline.

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 retrieves the daily BORME summary with company acts for a specific date, specifying the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_boe_summary, but the name and context are distinctive enough.

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 usage for BORME data by naming the resource, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_boe_summary) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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