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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data source is Florida DBPR public records, it is checked daily but DBPR updates only weekly so results may lag, and the return includes status and expiry. The staleness caveat is a valuable behavioral trait an agent would not otherwise know.

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 tight sentences: identity/scope first, query modes second, return and freshness third. No filler, and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so ('status and expiry date'). Combined with coverage of entity scope, query modes, and data freshness, it gives everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents each parameter, including the pairing hints ('use with business_name', 'use with zip'). The description restates the license-number vs. name+zip modes but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (look up) and a precise resource (Florida DBPR food service / mobile food license), enumerating covered entity types (restaurants, food trucks, caterers). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_state_food_rules and next_renewal_date, which address rules and renewal dates rather than license lookup.

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 explains the two valid query modes (by license number, or by business name plus 5-digit zip), which tells the agent how to invoke it in each case. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over a sibling or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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