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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the data is refreshed nightly, comes from Texas state datasets, and includes ended locations discovered via mixed-beverage receipts — provenance and staleness an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 core question and answer, then layers scope, provenance and return fields. The rhetorical 'Where does this business operate?' opener earns its place as a framing device, and the example is compact, though the sentence enumerating returned fields is dense.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing trade name, address, NAICS code, permit and first-sale dates, and current/ended status. Geographic scope, sources and freshness are covered; pagination/limit behavior is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 (limit, status, entity_id, include_affiliates) are already documented in the schema, including the 1-50 range, the status enum and the affiliate confidence threshold. The description's example call adds only marginal value, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns its locations') plus the exact composition of those locations (sales-tax outlets plus closed mixed-beverage-receipt locations) and the fields returned. It also fixes the domain ('Texas only') and the sourcing, which separates it cleanly from siblings like get_licenses and find_affiliates.

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?

Gives clear qualifying context (Texas-only; businesses registered with the Texas Comptroller or TABC) and implies the prerequisite by noting entity_id comes from resolve_business. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over get_licenses or find_affiliates, so the routing is left partly to inference.

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