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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the description's added value is the return shape: verbatim findings, status-as-of date, official record link and CheckedCare page URL. The only real gap is the absence of any note on rate limits, caching or what happens when a slug doesn't match.

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, all load-bearing: trigger and identifying inputs first, then the return contents, then the exclusion list. No restatement of the title or filler.

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?

For a read-only 3-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the output contents, the identification modes and the scope boundaries, which is everything an agent needs to call it 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% and the schema describes all three parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only that the slug originates from find_facility and that the license number may be user-supplied, which is useful disambiguation but limited beyond the baseline.

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 ... official record') and enumerates the payload (license status, inspection counts, agency findings), which distinguishes it clearly from the sibling find_facility, whose slug output is explicitly named as the input to this tool.

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 an explicit trigger condition (one specific facility already identified via a record_key slug or a user-supplied license number) and explicit exclusions (no grading/ranking/comparison, no staff or child lookups), leaving little to inference.

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