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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: nearest-first ordering, each result carrying its distance plus how the distance was measured, and the caveat that licensing does not imply the store is open or stocked. The 'maker' result kind is explained, though the schema's kind enum does not include 'maker', which leaves a small ambiguity about whether that is a request filter or only a result label.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and scope, followed by result shape, the maker edge case, and the licensing caveat. Nothing is redundant, though the 'maker' sentence is narrow for its position in an otherwise general description.

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 must carry the return-shape burden, and it partially does (distance, how it was measured, TerraVault page, maker kind). However, for a 6-parameter tool it omits what miles and limit do, and gives no sense of result volume or whether an empty radius result is possible.

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 50%, and the description covers zip, city, state, and the result-kind concept, but says nothing about miles (radius options 10/25/50) or limit (1-25 results), the two parameters whose meaning and defaults are least self-evident. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial schema documentation it complements.

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 licensed cannabis stores and delivery services near a place), the data source (the state's own license lists), and the ordering (nearest first). That geographic-proximity framing distinguishes it clearly from siblings like lookup_license, state_license_counts, and state_license_report, which operate on individual licenses or aggregate views.

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?

Tells the agent the two supported lookup modes (ZIP, or city in a given state) and implies the state parameter is required with city via the schema. It also warns that a license does not mean a store is open or stocks an item, which sets expectations about the result. It stops short of naming a sibling for a specific-license lookup.

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