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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (status, expiration, brokerage, etc.) and notes that the claim URL always resolves, including for licenses looked up in real time. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or authentication requirements.

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?

The description is concise, containing 4-5 sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second lists returns, third explains claim URL behavior, and fourth gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates by listing all return fields (status, expiration, brokerage, timestamp, claim status, claim URL) and explaining the URL's behavior. For a tool with only two simple parameters, this provides sufficient context, though it omits potential error conditions.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (state: 'Two-letter state code'; license_number: 'Exactly as issued by the state (no spaces)'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool verifies a real estate license's active status and returns a canonical claim URL. It uses specific verbs ('Verify', 'return') and identifies the unique resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scout.find_agent which focus on profiles rather than license verification.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'when you have a license number and want to tell the agent how to claim their AI pin, or before sending a lead.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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