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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the returned fields, the status derivation (expired/due/ok) with days counted from today in Oregon time, and the critical interpretation of a not-found result. It also points to the official CCB source for authoritative verification.

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?

Front-loaded with what it does and what it returns, then caveats. Dense but mostly earned; 'Oregon only' and the state-dataset phrasing mildly duplicate the opening sentence, costing a little tightness.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully — fields, status semantics, and match-count behavior. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it or interpret results 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 100%, so the query format, length limits, batch caps and per-name match limits are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that lookup works by license number or business name, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (look up) and resource (Oregon CCB licenses) and names the exact upstream dataset, so the tool is unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from the unrelated sibling fda_recall_check.

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?

Gives clear scope conditions ('Oregon only', license number or business name) and explicit exclusions ('does not show complaints or discipline history and does not check what a policy covers'), which tell the agent when this tool cannot answer. It does not name an alternative tool for those out-of-scope questions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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