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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the output: regulator, public registry URL when it exists, and the credential type classification. This goes beyond a vague 'returns information' and gives the agent a clear sense of the tool's behavior, though it does not highlight potential limitations or error cases.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the trigger condition, and every clause adds meaningful information. There is no repetition of the tool name or title.

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 having no output schema, the description enumerates the key return elements (regulator, public registry URL, credential type) and explains the optional province behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope and output without additional structured metadata.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining what the tool does with those parameters (e.g., returning per-province results), but it does not add new parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Call this when the user wants to know whether...') and clearly identifies the resource: real-estate profession regulation in Canadian provinces. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trouver_expert by focusing on regulation, licensing bodies, and verification rather than finding or contacting experts.

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 opens with explicit usage guidance ('Call this when...') and outlines exactly what the tool returns. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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