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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting the data source ('official public extract files') and result scope ('Business records only'), but it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or return format.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and filter dimensions are front-loaded, and the scope qualifier is placed at the end efficiently.

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 simple 4-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, data source, filters, and record scope adequately. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether results are paginated or what fields are returned, but this is not a critical gap for invocation.

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 all parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description echoes three of the four parameter concepts (county, trade, issue date) but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Florida DBPR contractor licenses') and names the filter dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool, even though the domain is unique among the mostly calculator-oriented siblings.

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 filter list implies when to use the tool (to find licenses by county, trade, or issue date), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and scope.

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