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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries responsibility for behavioral nuance. It adds substantial context: 33-state coverage, repocessed from official sources on a recurring schedule, status is 'at PestPin's last check,' publication timing varies, and a miss is not proof of being unlicensed. This aligns with and reinforces the openWorldHint.

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 operation, then states return fields, and closes with a necessary caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Given the 2-parameter schema, the readOnly/openWorld annotations, and no output schema, the description tells the agent everything needed: what is returned, how current the data is, and how to interpret a miss. No critical behavioral or usage information is missing.

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 both parameters clearly: 'company' accepts a business name or license number, and 'state' is an optional two-letter code. The description mostly repeats the searchable concepts rather than adding new parameter-level detail.

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: 'Look up a US pest control company in PestPin's state license-record directory.' It also names the exact data returned (license number, state, status, source link), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like find_licensed_pros.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: verifying a US pest control company's license in PestPin's record directory. It implicitly distinguishes this from finding licensed pros, and it includes important caveats about miss interpretation, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 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.