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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context on top: the returned fields (license type, status as printed, city/county, list read date, state record link) and an explicit privacy boundary ('Never returns phone numbers, emails or owner details'). The freshness signal ('date the list was read') is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and lookup keys, followed by the return/coverage detail. The state list is dense but functional; no sentence is filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields, the geographic coverage, and what is intentionally excluded. An agent has everything needed to call it and to set expectations on results.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the example license-number format. The description only restates the accepted key types, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured data — baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Look up a cannabis or hemp business license') plus the lookup keys (license number or business name) and the exact state coverage. That scope makes it distinguishable from siblings like state_license_report and licensed_near without opening either schema.

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 context for use — you have a license number or business name and want the state's own record from TerraVault's covered lists. It does not explicitly name when to prefer licensed_near or state_license_counts instead, so no exclusions are offered.

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