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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool starts a paid Apify Actor, may consume usage, waits up to 60 seconds, caps output at 1,000 rows, and does not modify government records. This adds meaningful operational context beyond the sparse 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 with purpose, sibling alternative, and behavior all covered. The sentence about 'Address mode preserves explicit evidence decisions, scope, and receipts' is somewhat vague and not tied to a parameter, but the overall structure is compact and front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description covers essential operational details: cost, timeout, row limit, and non-modification. However, it does not explain how results are delivered (e.g., via a dataset or key-value store), and the ambiguous 'Address mode' leaves minor gaps for an agent deciding on invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level behavioral context (e.g., 'source-linked rows') and mentions 'Address mode' without linking it to any specific parameter, providing no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('research') and resource ('US short-term-rental permit sources' across 32), and explicitly differentiates from the Florida-specific fl-dbpr-vacation-rentals sibling. The purpose is immediately discernible and distinct from the other sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use the tool ('address, permit-ID, or jurisdiction research across 32...') and when not to ('For Florida statewide DBPR lodging licenses, use fl-dbpr-vacation-rentals instead'). This gives clear routing guidance with no inference needed.

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