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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds value by disclosing the result limit of 25 records, return fields, issuing board, date of copy, and state coverage. It gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe failure modes or empty-result behavior.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose first, then return details, then coverage and the safety instruction. Every sentence adds substantive information and there is no wasted text.

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 appropriately explains the return fields and record limit, and it covers scope and user guidance. It is slightly incomplete because it never mentions the sibling tool or how to discover valid license_type values, and it omits behavior for unsupported states or no matches.

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 the schema already documents query, state, and license_type. The description adds useful meaning for query (name, business name, or license number) and enumerates supported states, but it does not elaborate on the license_type parameter or its relationship to list_license_types.

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 clearly states what the tool does: look up licenses by name, business name, or license number, and it enumerates license categories and covered states. It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool list_license_types, so it misses the top score.

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 implies when to use the tool—for verifying a license in a supported state—and adds the instruction to tell users to confirm on the board's own lookup. However, it does not mention the sibling list_license_types or explain when to use it, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.

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