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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: a 300-record cap and a $0.99 USDC per-call charge via x402 on Base. The paid-call requirement is important pre-invocation information an agent would otherwise not have. It still omits rate-limit or error 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?

Two compact sentences with the resource description front-loaded, followed by filters, cap, and pricing. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 usefully discloses the record cap and cost, and the filter semantics are covered by the schema. It could say more about the record shape or pagination, but for a simple two-parameter list tool it is largely sufficient.

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 both parameters (days, county) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the filter ranges without adding syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline 3.

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+resource: 'Current TABC new license applications and newly issued permits', which is clearly distinct from the sibling sample tool via 'fresh'/'no delay'. It does not explicitly name the sample sibling it contrasts with, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 lists the available filters and their ranges, implying how to narrow results, but never states when to choose this tool over texas_liquor_licenses_sample or the trucking siblings. Usage is only implied by the 'fresh'/'no delay' framing.

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