whoislicensed — state license lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail by revealing what the result contains (coverage explanations and page URL) and confirming it is a catalog listing rather than a verification action.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the intended usage. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety implications, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly and understand its role in the workflow with verify_license.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter: a two-letter state code, omittable for all states. The description adds some downstream context by saying the result helps choose a license_type for verify_license, but it does not significantly expand on the parameter's own semantics.

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?

The description states exactly what the tool returns: the states and license types whoislicensed.com carries, what each covers, and the page URL. It also differentiates from the sibling verify_license by framing itself as the preparatory lookup that feeds verification.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool to pick a state and an optional license_type for verify_license, which is clear usage context. It does not list exclusion cases, but with only one sibling tool, this is sufficient direction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: up to 25 records, the specific fields returned, the issuing board and copy date, and a mandatory post-search instruction to tell the user to confirm on the board's own lookup. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it returns, and the required confirmation instruction. The operation and coverage are front-loaded, with no filler or tautology.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately discloses the return shape: up to 25 matching records with type, number, expiration date, status, issuing board, and copy date. It also gives state coverage and a clear user-facing follow-up step, making the tool callable correctly with the information provided.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating the 12 valid state codes and clarifying that the query parameter can be a name, business name, or partial license number. It does not explain license_type further, but the schema already points agents to list_license_types for valid slugs.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a clear object ('a contractor, tradesperson, real estate or cosmetology license') and names the data source ('a US state's own published license file'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling list_license_types by describing a search-and-return operation rather than a type-listing operation.

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 description gives useful context by listing the 12 supported states and the kinds of licenses covered, so an agent can infer when it applies. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer list_license_types (e.g., when a license_type slug is needed) or what to do for unsupported states or license categories.

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