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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real value on top: it names the data source, discloses that results carry state license records with agency verify links, and clarifies that 'license match' is a filter path. It does not mention the default/max result cap (limit), which would be useful for an open-world search.

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, zero filler: the first defines scope and filters, the second defines the return payload. Nothing is repeated from the title and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 seven parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description covers both input scoping and output shape (license records, verify link, phone, website), which is the main gap it needs to fill. Only the result-limit/pagination behavior is left unaddressed.

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% with per-parameter descriptions for zip, city, county, state, service, and licensed_only, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description touches on the filter set but adds no format or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides — the 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 (search) and resource (septic companies listed on thesepticguide.com) plus the scoping dimension (a state) and the return content. The resource is distinct from the sibling tools (get_cost_guide, get_state_licensing, list_states), though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The enumerated filters imply the usage contexts (find contractors by city, county, ZIP, service, or license match), but there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance and no statement about when to prefer get_state_licensing or get_cost_guide instead.

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