Look up a Florida real-estate licensee in the public DBPR weekly file: by license number (exact) or by name (up to 10 matches). Returns only public fields: name, license number, rank, status, expiry, employer name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Part or all of the name, e.g. 'Santos Maria' | |
| license_number | No | e.g. SL3611207 or 3611207 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data comes from a weekly refreshed public file (implying staleness up to a week), only public fields are returned, and name searches are capped at 10 matches — none of which is in the annotations or schema.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loading the capability and source before the lookup modes, then the return fields. Every clause contributes information; there is no filler or restatement of the name.
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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields and signals the data source's weekly cadence. The only gap is behavior when both optional parameters are omitted or combined, which an agent would need to know for a zero-required-parameter 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: license_number is an exact match (no fuzzy/partial) while name matches partially and is limited to 10 results. That exact-versus-partial contrast and the result cap are not expressed by the parameter descriptions alone.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (look up a Florida real-estate licensee) plus the exact data source (public DBPR weekly file) and the two supported search modes. The returned field list makes the scope unambiguous and no sibling tool overlaps with it.
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 clearly indicates when each input mode applies: exact license number lookup versus name search with a cap of 10 matches. It does not state what happens if both parameters are supplied, nor does it name any alternative tool, leaving that edge case to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.