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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them: nightly refresh from state datasets, Texas-only coverage, the meaning of 'forfeited' (franchise tax), what appearing on the credit-law delinquency list implies for the retailer, and the crucial caveat that federal_exclusions matches on exact name AND street address so an empty list is not a clearance. That last point materially changes how an agent should interpret the result.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question and the primary return fields, then grouped by sub-section (state_permits, tabc_credit_law_delinquency, federal_exclusions, motor_carriers, labor_summary). It is dense and long, and the run-on structure makes it easy to skim past the important caveats, but essentially every clause carries semantic weight.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does so exhaustively, including per-section interpretation rules and disclaimers. Combined with readOnly/openWorld annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 the single entity_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a worked call example and reinforces that the id originates from resolve_business, giving practical call-site value, though it does not restate the schema's 10-digit SOS file number alternative.

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?

Opens with the actual question the tool answers ('What is this business legally, and is it in good standing?') and then enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what resource it is fetching. It also draws the boundary against siblings by pointing to get_motor_carriers and get_labor_record for full records.

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?

Clearly scopes applicability (Texas only, Comptroller/TABC-registered businesses, refreshed nightly) and routes sub-question depth to get_motor_carriers and get_labor_record. It implies but never explicitly states the sibling relationship to resolve_business or when to prefer this over get_licenses/get_locations, so it is strong but not a complete when/when-not map.

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