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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the crucial behavioral caveat that results reflect a snapshot date rather than a live check, and explicitly excludes disciplinary and continuing-education status. That is real disclosure beyond the structured fields and consistent with openWorldHint=false.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the return fields and the snapshot caveat. No sentence is filler; the limitations are placed where an agent will read them.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to name the returned fields (type, number, expiry, expired-as-of-snapshot) and the exclusions. Combined with annotations covering the read-only/open-world profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 city, name, limit, and license_number, including the 'LAST, FIRST' storage convention. The description restates the two lookup paths but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, 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 ('Look up') and a precisely scoped resource (Texas barber/cosmetology/school/establishment license in the TDLR record). The 'Texas only' constraint and the license-type enumeration let an agent tell it apart from generic search tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explains both invocation paths (license number vs. name + optional city) and sets scope boundaries ('not a live check', no disciplinary or CE data). It never names the sibling texas_licensee_counts as an alternative, so routing between the two is left to inference.

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