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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: the data is a periodic snapshot rather than live, and the authoritative source is linked. It does not say what happens when a state is unsupported or a number is not found, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three tight sentences with no waste: purpose and return fields first, then jurisdiction limits, then the data-freshness caveat. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and safety already covered by annotations, the description supplies return-value content (status, holder, expiry) and jurisdiction scope, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing the not-found or unsupported-state outcome.

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 100% and the single parameter already carries per-state format examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description confirms that either a license or a registration number is acceptable and that formats differ by state, but adds no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 plus the exact outputs of the check: active status, holding company, expiration date. The jurisdiction scope (Texas SFMO, California CSLB) further pins down the resource and separates it from the provider-oriented siblings, which deal in people/companies rather than license records.

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?

Coverage limits make the usage boundary explicit — only Texas and California records apply, and the snapshot caveat tells the agent when to fall back to the official lookup link. It never names the sibling tools (get_provider, search_providers) as alternatives, so routing is left to inference.

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