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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: only rows verified against the full official page are returned, unverified cases fall back to a 'Check with your local health department' message plus an official link, and it 'never guesses'. That reliability contract is exactly what an agent needs to trust the output; only auth/rate-limit detail is absent.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, with the verification/fallback caveat immediately after.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does by listing every returned field plus the fallback response. For a read-only, two-parameter tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented (state format, optional business_type examples), which sets the baseline at 3. The description only restates 'a US state and business type' without adding format, defaulting, or matching semantics 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 gives a specific verb and resource (get verified food license rules) and enumerates the exact fields returned (issuing agency, renewal cycle, expiry, fee, late fee, official link). It implicitly separates itself from the Florida-only sibling by scoping to 'a US state and business type', but never names the alternatives, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to get food license rules for a given state/business type. The description explains the data-quality behavior but never states when to prefer it over lookup_florida_license or next_renewal_date, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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