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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, only public and unsuppressed records are returned, and it distinguishes 'no change observed' from 'this source is not observed for that change'. It also explains the data source and the date threshold, giving an agent strong behavioral expectations.

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 dense but well-structured, with a clear front-loaded statement of purpose, followed by usage guidance, a critical semantic distinction, and a read-only caveat. Every sentence earns its place and no unnecessary filler is present.

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 tool has no output schema or annotations, the description explains what will be returned, the kinds of transitions, the source data, and the important caveats. It sufficiently covers likely agent questions about current status, data availability, and observation semantics. No critical operational context appears to be missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it provides useful context about relying on a licence but does not further explain state or license_number semantics. This is acceptable because the schema already documents both parameters clearly.

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 what the tool does: it returns every status transition observed in a state board file for a specific contractor's licence, with examples of transition types. It distinguishes itself from a current-status lookup, though it does not explicitly reference the sibling tool 'recent_license_changes'. Overall, the resource and scope are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after a snapshot check, to determine whether a licence lapsed and came back. It also clearly says this is not a current-status lookup. However, it does not name or contrast the sibling tool directly, so the alternatives guidance is slightly incomplete.

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