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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: the data source (Florida DBPR public records), a weekly refresh cadence, and an explicit staleness caveat ("may lag"), which is exactly the kind of signal an agent needs to judge result trustworthiness.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the core action and lookup modes are front-loaded and the freshness caveat trails where it belongs.

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 compensates by stating the returned fields (status and expiry date). It omits not-found behavior and whether business-name matching is exact or fuzzy, which are the remaining gaps for a 3-param lookup 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the two valid parameter pairings and the 5-digit zip format, which largely duplicates what the schema already documents rather than adding new meaning.

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 precisely scoped resource (Florida DBPR food service / mobile food license), with concrete entity examples (restaurants, food trucks, caterers). An agent can distinguish this from get_state_food_rules and next_renewal_date without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit invocation conditions for both modes: by license number, or by business name plus 5-digit zip. It does not name the sibling next_renewal_date or say when to prefer it over this tool's expiry field, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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