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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the ranking rule (city offices first, then same county, alphabetical, no paid placement) and what each result carries (license numbers, expiration dates, regulator, page URL, cite_as). It does not say how include_lapsed interacts with the 'active license' promise or what an empty result means, but the ordering and citation guidance are genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

One tight paragraph with the scope and covered states front-loaded, then filters, then ordering, then return contents. Every sentence earns its place, though the citation request could be trimmed to a clause.

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 an 8-parameter read-only search with no output schema, it covers scope, filters, ordering, and the shape of a result including citation practice. It is not fully complete: the interaction between include_lapsed and 'active license,' and default limit, are left to the schema, and no sibling handoff is described.

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 88%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by explaining the effect of city (ranking grouping) and the default behavior that nearby same-county companies are appended, which the schema only states mechanically. It leaves the service enum and limit semantics to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 ('Find fire protection companies with an active state license') and names the two covered jurisdictions and their regulators, so the agent knows exactly what universe this searches. It is distinguishable from get_provider (single record) and verify_license (verification) by its search/filter framing.

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?

Clearly says to use this when filtering by state, city, county, service or name, and explains the city-based ordering behavior. It never explicitly points to get_provider or verify_license as the follow-up for detail or verification, so the sibling routing is only implied.

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