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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it returns license type, status, holder, dates, county, grow method, and related dispensary/brand links, and it returns candidates in `similar` for partial input. This is useful context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three focused sentences, front-loaded with the core scope and purpose. It packs coverage, return fields, partial-match behavior, and example use cases without redundant 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 single-parameter read-only lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: scope, accepted input forms, returned data, linked results, and target questions. No critical guidance is missing.

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?

The schema already describes the license_number parameter well, including example formats and that company names work. The description adds extra behavioral context by explaining that partial numbers or names return candidates in `similar`, which goes beyond the schema's static parameter description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Look up ANY New York OCM cannabis license number" against the full OCM licensing record. It also explicitly differentiates scope by saying "not just shops," which separates it from the dispensary-focused sibling tools.

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 states clear use cases: "Use it to answer 'is this a real licensed NY business' and 'who holds this license'." It also signals its broad coverage versus shop-only tools, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or list when to use them instead.

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