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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return fields (license number, type, location, renewal date), which is useful, but it does not disclose potential caveats like data freshness, match behavior, or error conditions. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, the matching criteria, and the returned fields with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and simple look-up behavior, the description adequately covers the core aspects: what it checks, how to query, and what is returned. It does not address edge cases like not-found or multiple matches, but these are minor for such a simple tool and could be inferred from the described behavior.

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 description ('Company name (e.g. "Young Sea Cargo") or FMC license number.') already fully defines the query parameter. The tool description only restates this ('by company name or license number') without adding new meaning, so it stays at the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('FMC list of licensed and bonded Ocean Transportation Intermediaries'), and clarifies it operates by company name or license number. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools which focus on exports, tariffs, and restricted parties, so an agent can immediately identify its purpose.

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 what the tool does but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. While the purpose is clear enough to infer, it does not mention, for example, that restricted-party screening should use screen_restricted_party, leaving the routing to the agent's inference.

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