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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: it enumerates the returned facts and explicitly disclaims listing professionals or asserting verification. That negative framing prevents a plausible downstream misuse, which is real added value beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentences with jurisdiction front-loaded and zero filler. The clause 'where the READER checks a license number' is slightly awkwardly embedded but carries important meaning, so it 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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the return contents, the jurisdictional scope, and the misuse caveat. Annotations carry the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing, though a note on lookup availability or freshness would round it out.

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 fully documented, including the profession values. The description repeats the profession list but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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 verb+resource and enumerates exactly what is returned: license requirement, regulator, license titles, and official lookup. The 'UNITED STATES' prefix and the profession list separate it from the country-scoped siblings (check_professional_au/in/uk), though the tool name ('verify_license') slightly overpromises versus what the description says it actually returns.

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?

Makes the usage boundary explicit: the tool supplies the official lookup and the READER performs the license-number check, so the agent knows not to treat the result as a verification. It also warns that no US professionals are listed and that 'verified by Payotte' must never be claimed. No sibling tool is named as an alternative, which keeps it 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.