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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld; the description adds the crucial behavioral facts: it is Socrata public open data, and it costs $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc with failed calls uncharged. That payment/cost behavior is invisible to annotations and directly affects agent decision-making.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, then provenance and pricing. The return-field enumeration is partly redundant with the existing output schema, which is the only minor waste.

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 and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to supply scope, provenance and cost — all of which it does. An agent has everything required to call it and to decide whether the paid call is worth making.

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 documented with constraints (2–60 chars, 1–25 rows, default 10). The description only restates that q is a business-name search, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 source (NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection license list), a specific action (searches by business name), and the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from b2b_chicago_business_licenses or b2b_nyc_certified_business from the text alone.

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?

'Searches by business name' and 'license rows only' imply the applicable case and implicitly exclude other NYC datasets, but no alternative sibling is named and no exclusion conditions are stated explicitly.

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