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

Annotations already declare read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: nightly refresh from Texas state datasets (staleness expectations), link method plus confidence per license, and inclusion of Credit Law Delinquent List appearances. It does not cover pagination or ordering, but for a read tool this is solid added value.

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-loads the purpose question, then the returned fields, then scope and freshness, ending with a concrete call example. Slightly dense and the example partly duplicates schema knowledge, but there is no wasted preamble.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (type, trade name, status, dates, link method/confidence, delinquent-list appearances) and states scope and data freshness. An agent has enough to call and interpret results 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only restates active_only through its example call. No syntax or edge-case detail (e.g., how include_affiliates interacts with the confidence threshold) is added 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 and resource ('What alcohol licenses does this business hold or has it held?') and enumerates the returned record content, so an agent distinguishes it from get_locations or find_affiliates immediately. The Texas-only scope is stated up front.

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?

It establishes the applicable domain (Texas entities registered with Comptroller or TABC) and ties entity_id to resolve_business, which implies the calling sequence. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like get_entity or find_affiliates, nor any exclusion conditions, so usage is only implied.

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