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

Annotations already establish a safe read (readOnlyHint) against a bounded dataset (openWorldHint=false); the description adds real behavioral value on top by disclosing the null-return-with-guidance behavior and the dataset's coverage boundary (verified fixed dates vs anniversary-based permits). It stops short of describing date formatting or confidence semantics on the returned values.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The alternative input paths are packed into a single clause and the failure mode is stated last, which is the right ordering.

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 must carry the return contract: it states a date is returned or null with guidance, which covers the important case. It leaves the exact date format and the shape of the included 'guidance' unstated, a minor gap for an otherwise self-contained definition.

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 already 100% and states the parameters plainly, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: that license_number and state are alternative lookup modes, that city/business_type are optional refinements on the state path, and that state only works where a verified fixed deadline exists. This conditional semantics genuinely helps an agent pick a valid argument combination.

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 ('Get the next food license renewal deadline') and spells out the two input modes: a Florida DBPR license_number for a real expiry, or a state for jurisdictions with a verified fixed yearly deadline. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling lookup_florida_license, which also handles Florida licenses, so this falls just short of 5.

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 clear conditional usage: use license_number for Florida, state (+ optional city/business_type) for fixed-deadline jurisdictions, with a worked example ('Michigan Apr 30'). It also signals the negative case (anniversary-based permits return null). No explicit routing away from sibling tools, so 4 rather than 5.

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