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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing returned fields and noting that fees are for an expired license, though it does not explain behavior for no matches or multiple matches.

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 two focused sentences. The lookup modes are front-loaded and the return fields follow efficiently, with no redundant or wasted language.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields. It remains slightly incomplete on edge-case behavior such as no match or multiple matches from a last-name-plus-type search.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters, including the last_name-plus-type constraint and the lang enum. The description reinforces the lookup modes but adds little parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: looking up one Texas electrician license in the TDLR file. It clearly distinguishes a single-license lookup from sibling tools like get_license_stats and list_license_types, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives clear invocation paths: by license number, or by last name plus license type. This provides enough context for an agent to know how to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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