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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing the null-return behavior with guidance and enumerating cases where no verified date exists (anniversary-based permits, Ohio food trucks). It does not discuss caching or data freshness, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose plus the two input modes are front-loaded before the null-behavior caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 return-value burden and does so: it specifies the returned deadline, the null-with-guidance failure case, and example exceptions. Combined with full schema coverage and covering annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by constraining license_number to Florida DBPR and explaining how state/city/business_type combine for fixed-deadline lookups. The county parameter is never mentioned, which is the one gap.

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 the next food license renewal deadline') and then cleanly splits the two modes of operation: Florida DBPR license lookup for a real expiry date, versus state/city/business_type for a verified fixed yearly deadline. This is easy to distinguish from lookup_florida_license and get_state_food_rules.

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?

It clearly states which parameter combination to use for which outcome ('Give a Florida DBPR license_number for its real expiry date, or a state... for states/cities with a verified fixed yearly deadline'), which functions as when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming the sibling tools as explicit alternatives, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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