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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the read-only annotations: the result is based on 'GCC Domestic' records and returns an official government registry link for independent verification, implying the tool's data is a starting point rather than authoritative. It does not explain error or not-found behavior, but for a read-only lookup this is acceptable.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by lookup options and return value. Every clause adds information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 simple read-only lookup with a small schema, the description is largely complete: it states inputs and output, and the schema covers required and optional parameters. A minor gap is that possible licence status values or not-found behavior are not described, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful examples of licence/facility number formats (UAE MOHRE, Saudi Musaned), which helps the agent recognize valid inputs beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific action verb and resource: 'Verify whether a Gulf recruitment agency is government-licensed.' It also clarifies the lookup modes (name or licence/facility number) and names the return value, which clearly separates it from sibling search tools like search_agencies.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when you need to verify a Gulf agency's government licence status, with explicit lookup by name or licence number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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