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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the result is an Ed25519-signed receipt suitable for storage as proof. However, it does not mention failure behavior, permissions, cost, or whether the operation is purely read-only, leaving notable transparency gaps.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core action and optional capability, the second states the return format and practical value. Every sentence earns its place and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately tells the agent what to expect (a signed receipt) and why it matters (storable proof). It omits failure handling and explicit routing to alternatives, but for a two-parameter tool the core call path is adequately explained.

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%, with both license_number and jurisdiction already well documented including normalization, pattern, and the cost-saving benefit of jurisdiction. The description reinforces jurisdiction's purpose but adds no information beyond the schema, so the 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 states a concrete action ('Verify a contractor license') and an optional capability (cross-reference jurisdiction permit context), and makes the tool's identity distinct from sibling lookup tools by emphasizing verification and a signed receipt. Even without naming a sibling, an agent can tell this is for license verification rather than permit search or census stats.

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 gives clear context for when the optional jurisdiction parameter adds value: it includes permit context and avoids a second paid call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the optional/combined behavior is a useful, concrete usage signal.

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