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 is covered. The description adds useful context that the slug originates from search results and that records can be keyed by state license/registration numbers, but says nothing about not-found behavior, key precedence, or what the 'full record' contains.

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 sentence with the resource front-loaded and both accepted key types stated compactly. Nothing is wasted and no subordinate clutter.

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 small two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: keys, their origins, and the read-only nature are all covered. Only edge-case behavior (no match, both keys provided) 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 coverage is only 50%, with `slug` entirely undocumented, so the description carries real load: it explains that the slug is a directory slug sourced from search results and that license_number can be any state license or registration number. It still doesn't say whether the two parameters are mutually exclusive or how conflicts resolve.

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 (look up a company) plus the two lookup keys, and the title supplies the scope ('full record'). It hints at the relationship to search_providers by noting the slug comes from search results, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Implied usage is clear enough: fetch one record after finding a slug in search results, or resolve a company from a license number. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus search_providers or verify_license, nor does it say what to do when both lookup keys are supplied.

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