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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that partial identifiers return candidates in a 'similar' field)Skip punctuation. It also reveals extra enrichments (matching dispensary listing and brand when available) and special handling for cultivators (grow method), which an agent would not know from the schema alone.

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, no filler, with the core lookup scope first, then return details, then flexibility in input. Every clause earns its place.

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 with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the input forms, the entity scope, the output fields, and the special cases (partial matches, cultivator grow method). No critical gaps remain for an agent to decide whether to call this 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?

The input schema already describes the parameter comprehensively, but the description adds meaning by enumerating accepted forms: full OCM license numbers, application numbers, partial numbers, and company names. It also gives concrete examples, which materially reduces ambiguity about what value the tool accepts.

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 states a concrete action ('Look up') on a specific resource (NY OCM cannabis license) and explicitly scopes the full license universe (3,000+ licenses across all license types). It distinguishes itself from shop-only tools by saying 'not just shops' and clarifies its relationship to dispensary listings and brands.

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?

Provides clear trigger conditions by saying a partial number, application number, or company name should be used for candidate matching)Skip punctuation. It also names two concrete questions the tool answers ('is this a real licensed NY business', 'who holds this license'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_dispensary or search_dispensaries, but the 'not just shops' phrasing implies the boundary.

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