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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the data comes from the state's own list, and license links are attached only "where the name matches" — signalling fuzzy matching and that some records will lack a link. Pagination and result limits remain unspecified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first, then the source, then enrichment, then filters and scope. No filler or restated title.

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 a simple two-optional-filter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, this covers source, scope, and the notable link-matching behavior. It stops short of describing the record shape (name, city/county, license link) or result volume, which an agent would want since no output schema exists.

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 both parameters are optional, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the filter and adds the value-domain constraint (California only), but says nothing about matching behavior — exact vs partial, case sensitivity, or how city and county combine when both are supplied.

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 (list) and a precisely bounded resource: growers/distributors certified under OCal, California's comparable-to-organic standard. Names the data source (the state's own list) and the enrichment (TerraVault license links), which makes it unmistakably distinct from the general license-lookup siblings such as lookup_license or state_license_report.

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?

"Optional city or county filter. California only." gives usable context and a hard geographic boundary, so when to reach for it is implied. But it never says when not to use it or which sibling to use instead for general license lookups, recalls, or counts.

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