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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses the snapshot data vintage, that live_active_verified is always false, and a result cap of up to 10. It omits permissions, rate limits, and pagination behavior, which are the remaining gaps for a data-retrieval tool.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the critical 'snapshot, not live' caveat. The '1.0.0 name for...' preamble is slightly awkward metadata that costs a little readability but also carries migration meaning.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers data source, searchable fields, result cap, and the key live_active_verified caveat. Only the limit parameter semantics and any return-field shape beyond live_active_verified are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates license_number, business_name (with a 3+ character minimum the schema does not state) and zip, plus the optional city filter. The limit parameter and its default of 5 are never mentioned, though the 'up to 10 results' cap partially explains it.

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: search a SNAPSHOT of California CSLB's public bulk contractor-license list, and explicitly frames it as the state-CA variant of search_contractor_license_snapshot. The snapshot-vs-live distinction and the searchable fields let an agent identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly signals context: use this for snapshot bulk-list data, and 'this is not a live CSLB lookup' warns against expecting current status. It implies the sibling snapshot tool covers other states, but never states when to prefer it over search_contractor_license_snapshot explicitly, so routing is partly inferred.

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