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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing what the reader gets back (state regulators or registers, what they cover, where to check a licence) and that no Australian professional records exist in the directory.

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 sentences, jurisdiction flag front-loaded, zero filler, and the caveat about missing Australian professionals placed at the end where it reads as a boundary condition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to carry return semantics, and it does describe the kind of content returned. For a one-parameter informational lookup with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only the exact output shape is left vague.

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 single 'trade' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same list of trades, adding no syntax, format, or matching guidance beyond it, 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?

States a specific resource (Australian state regulators/registers for property professionals) and scopes it by trade, and the 'AUSTRALIA.' prefix separates it from check_professional_uk/in and verify_license_us. The name suggests checking a professional while the description clarifies it only points to where a licence is checked, a minor mismatch.

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?

Implies usage by enumerating the covered trades and noting 'Payotte lists no Australian professional yet', which effectively says you cannot look up a specific person here. It never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-not beyond that.

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