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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds value by detailing the returned data including government links and trade insights, providing context beyond safety. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, informative sentence that front-loads the purpose, but it is somewhat long (three lines). It could be split for readability while remaining concise overall.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return fields. It effectively summarizes the rich output including trade-specific insights and government links, making the tool's value complete for an agent.

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 describes both parameters (state and trade) with full coverage. Description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves trade licensing and compliance requirements for an Australian state, listing specific outputs like licence type, requirements, cost estimates, and trade insights. This is distinct from sibling tools like formation.checklist or formation.funding, making the purpose 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 implies usage for getting licensing requirements but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like formation.recommend_trade or formation.guided_setup. No when-not-to-use or context for exclusions are given.

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