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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not required to repeat it. The description does add real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the matching modes (company name or license number) and the fields returned (license number, type, location, renewal date), which matters because there is no output schema. It could go further by noting fuzzy-name matching or that non-appearance does not prove the company is unlicensed.

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 sentences, no filler: the purpose and search key come first, the return fields second. Every clause earns its place, and the acronym OTI is defined inline for the reader.

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 no output schema, the description supplies both the input modes and the shape of the response, which is what an agent needs to call it. The remaining omission is interpretive guidance on a no-match result, which would matter for a compliance-verification 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries an example ('Young Sea Cargo'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same two input forms (company name or license number) without adding format rules, normalization hints, or fallback behavior when a name match is ambiguous, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: checks a company against the FMC's list of licensed and bonded Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, with the search key spelled out (name or license number). The only gap is that it never names its nearest sibling, screen_restricted_party, so an agent must infer that this tool answers a licensing question rather than a sanctions question.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'Check whether a company appears on ... list' and by the name-or-license lookup key, which signals a due-diligence/verification scenario. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no stated alternative (e.g. screen_restricted_party for sanctions), and no note on what a negative result implies.

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