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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the returned fields, that county-level results add bond and workers' compensation insurer data, that results are paged, and that pricing is $0.002 in USDC per successful x402 call with no charge for failures. These are material behavioral details for invoking a paid public-records lookup.

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 front-loaded with source, scope, and returned fields, then moves to filtering, paging, and pricing. It is information-dense and mostly earns its length, though the long field enumeration and run-on structure make it slightly harder to scan.

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 paid external-registry lookup with five parameters and an output schema, the description covers the data source, required classification scope, county/city filtering, paging, returned fields, and pricing. It is largely complete, with only minor room for additional operational context such as rate limits or error specifics beyond failed-call billing.

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 all parameters are already documented with examples and limits. The description reinforces classification and optional county use and mentions city filtering and paging, but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 names a specific resource and source: California licensed contractors from the CSLB public Data Portal. It also scopes the result to one classification and optionally one county, making it distinguishable from generic business-license and other-state directories in the sibling list.

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 implies usage through 'for one license classification' and 'optionally one county,' and notes city filtering and paging. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with sibling alternatives or state when-not to use it, leaving routing mostly to inference.

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