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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world, and the description adds substantive behavioral facts beyond them: data provenance and monthly update cadence, and a paid-call model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, no charge on failure). The cost/auth and freshness signal is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Purpose, scope and limitations are front-loaded, with cost and freshness trailing. The result is dense but every clause carries information; the only minor cost is a long single sentence packing pricing into the same breath as data scope.

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 need not explain return values, and it still supplies the scope, freshness, provenance and payment model. Nothing material for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 fully documented in the schema (name-part syntax, 2-80 chars; limit 1-25 default 10). The description adds only a high-level 'searches by entity name' framing, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (searches New York Department of State active corporations by entity name) and enumerates returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from NYC-license or other state-registry siblings without opening the schema. It also pre-empts the closest misreading by declaring it is 'not a credit or ownership report.'

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?

Gives useful selection context: public open data, monthly refresh, and explicit negative guidance that it is not a credit/ownership report. It does not name specific alternatives among the many registry siblings (e.g., b2b_nyc_business_licenses, gov_sunbiz_florida_business), so routing is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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