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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses the data's nature as a snapshot, each row being a licence held on a reference date, and explicitly states what it is not: 'not a legal-entity register, not current beyond that date, incomplete for excluded licence categories, and not evidence of ownership, employment, size or operating health'. It also notes that home-based licences carry no address, which is a key behavioral trait.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, immediately specifies an exclusion and alternative, then adds critical caveats in a structured manner. Despite its length, there is no padding or redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool and lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides substantial context: the scope, limitations, and data freshness. It could go further by describing the return structure (e.g., what fields are present), but the cautionary notes about addresses and licence attributes partially cover output expectations. Overall, it is quite complete for a search 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 all parameters are individually documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, such as the meaning of 'q' or 'subsector'. It stays at the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Named businesses holding a municipal licence in one community'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'NOT who is hiring — use search_employers for that', making its scope unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context, stating it 'Answers who exists and in which industry' and explicitly excludes hiring-related queries, directing users to search_employers. It does not cover all possible alternatives (e.g., for cross-community comparisons), but the guidance is clear and sufficient for the primary use case.

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