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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value on top: variable coverage/as_of per board, 'Access and locked_fields identify unavailable fields', exact-match semantics, and an explicit scope limit ('No contact enrichment'). It still does not say what happens on a non-match (empty list vs error) or how results are ordered/paged.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with each sentence carrying distinct information. Slightly dense jargon ('Access and locked_fields') is used without explanation, which costs a point.

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 does sketch the relevant response concepts (coverage, as_of, access, locked_fields) and rules out contact enrichment. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotations this is close to sufficient, though the actual return shape (a list of license records) is never stated outright.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it adds meaningful semantics by saying the UUID is matched by 'the API's exact matching rules', implying no fuzzy or name-based matching. It does not say where the contractor UUID should be sourced (presumably search_contractors), leaving a gap for a single-param tool with no schema descriptions.

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 ('List public board licenses') plus the linkage key ('linked to a contractor UUID'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name a sibling to contrast with (e.g. lookup_license or get_contractor_permits), so it falls short of a 5.

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 required contractor UUID and the caveat that 'a registration is not a license', which steers the agent away from a plausible misread. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lookup_license or get_contractor_permits, and no when-not guidance.

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