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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists all four return types and their meanings, explicitly warns that no_match_in_index is not a determination of unlicensure, clarifies that jurisdiction_not_covered pointers vary in nature and must be relayed verbatim, and notes that coverage changes over time. This is extensive, high-value context.

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, using parentheses to group return-type nuances. It is slightly redundant—'never assume from this description whether a jurisdiction is covered' appears twice—but otherwise each sentence carries vital information. It is long yet readable and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the description thoroughly documents the return types and their implications, including pagination and the important caveat about official pointer links. It also addresses coverage volatility and how to obtain the current list. There are no significant gaps for an agent to make incorrect assumptions.

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 is already described. The description adds relational meaning: license OR name are alternatives, and jurisdiction is required (despite schema having no required flags). It also frames offset as pagination for candidates, reinforcing the schema's description. This exceeds baseline schema-only value.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Check a contractor's license against official state and local licensing records.' It clearly names the resource (contractor's license) and the scope (official records across US jurisdictions), and differentiates itself from generic lookups by detailing four distinct return states. Even without siblings, the purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 input requirements ('Provide a license number or a business name, plus the jurisdiction') and instructs users to check /v1/coverage before assuming jurisdiction coverage. It also explains how to disambiguate candidates and page with offset. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but with no sibling tools this is acceptable.

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