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

The description adds important behavioral and data-provenance context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: listings are matched public records, not recommendations; most businesses have not confirmed services or coverage; there is a link to the full list; and the one free request goes to a single company at a time and is never resold. This clearly sets user expectations and qualifies the results.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains three dense, purposeful sentences. It includes useful caveats and return details without becoming bloated, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what is returned, how many results, what data is included, where the full list is accessible, and important limitations. The input parameters are already fully documented in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces that city and pest type drive the search. No additional format or default information is provided beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List license-record pest control companies for a US city and pest type from PestPin.' It also specifies the output scope (up to 8 companies, license numbers, published phone numbers, link to full list), which clearly separates this from sibling tools like get_pest_cost and verify_license.

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 intended use is strongly implied by the purpose statement: use this when a user wants to find licensed pest control companies in a US city and pest type. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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