Search UK Due Diligence Registers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details: parallel search across registers and the ID-based retrieval pattern, without contradicting annotations.

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 concise sentences: purpose, details, result workflow. Front-loaded and no extraneous information.

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?

Given the simple schema, existence of output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it searches, how it returns results, and the follow-up action (fetch).

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?

The single parameter 'query' has a detailed schema description (100% coverage). The tool description reiterates types of queries but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 searches across all UK due diligence registers simultaneously, listing specific registers (Companies House, Charity Commission, etc.). This distinguishes it from individual register search siblings like company_search and charity_search.

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 when to use (broad cross-register search) and the workflow (returns IDs to fetch later). It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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