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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the data source (Socrata open data), what is excluded from rows, and the full pricing model: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 across three chains, with failed calls not charged. The billing and non-charging failure behavior is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: capability + return fields first, data-scope caveat second, payment terms third. Zero filler and the core purpose 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 an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it still names the key returned fields. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers source, scope, cost, and failure billing — everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both q and limit are already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'searches by legal or trade name' mirrors the q parameter description without adding syntax or format detail 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 verb ('searches by legal or trade name'), resource ('City of Chicago current active business licenses'), and enumerates the returned fields. The 'current active' scoping plus the Chicago jurisdiction lets an agent distinguish it from sibling registries like b2b_nyc_business_licenses or b2b_texas_sos_business without opening the schema.

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 establishes clear context — jurisdiction, 'current active' only, and an explicit limitation that it returns 'licence rows only, no ownership or credit data' — which effectively steers ownership/credit queries elsewhere. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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