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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: a 7-day data lag, removal of phone numbers (PII handling), and a 100-record cap. These are the kinds of traits an agent needs to set expectations, though nothing is said about pagination or what happens when the record cap is hit.

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?

Five short, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the resource and the delay constraint lead. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the run of fragments gives no connective structure between the freshness caveat and the sample limitation.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential caveats: delay, PII removal, record cap, and cost. It omits return-field composition and any rate-limit behavior, which is a minor gap given the low tool complexity.

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% and the schema already documents both 'days' (1-60, default 14) and 'county' (e.g. Harris). The description only restates that county is optional and adds the record cap; it adds no format or syntax detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific resource (new TABC liquor license applications and issued permits in Texas) and a concrete scope (7-day delay, optional county filter), so the agent knows exactly what data this returns. It separates itself from most siblings by the 'sample/free/100 records' framing, though it never explicitly contrasts with texas_liquor_licenses_fresh, so the sibling distinction is only implied.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the '7-day delay', 'up to 100 records' and 'free' cues signal this is the low-cost, lower-freshness option versus texas_liquor_licenses_fresh, and 'Optional county filter' clarifies scope reduction. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so an agent must infer the routing decision.

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