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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile and closed-world scope are covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the measurement methodology (cohort of filings tracked through to issuance), which tells an agent the figure is not a simple average of all filings. However, it does not say whether the returned figure is a median, mean, or range, nor what the units are, which is the main behavioral gap.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the metric and qualifies it with the measurement method. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with annotations and a fully described schema, the description is adequate but leaves an agent unable to predict the response — no units, no indication of whether the result is a scalar, a distribution, or a per-license-type breakdown. Given there is no output schema, the description should have carried that information.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema fully documents it with a two-letter code example. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameters, but with a single fully-described parameter there is little left to compensate for.

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 names a specific resource (liquor license processing time) and a specific scope (per state), and the measurement definition ('from filings followed through to the issued license') further pins down what is being reported. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like county_activity or sample_filings, but the metric named is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 metric definition: ask this when you need a duration for a given state. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of how it relates to state-level vs. county-level siblings, and no guidance on what to do for states without filings data.

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