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

Annotations only declare read-only and open-world, but the description adds the material operational facts: the upstream source (data.texas.gov), a stated data-currency caveat, and a pay-per-call model of $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc with failures uncharged. Cost and billing behavior are exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot express.

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, front-loaded with the resource and verb, then the scope caveat, then the cost model. Dense but each clause carries information; the x402 payment-rail parenthetical is the only slightly heavy detail.

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, return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them. Source, scope limits, and billing behavior cover everything an agent needs before invoking a paid open-data lookup.

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 with allowed characters and ranges. The description only echoes that search is by taxpayer name and adds no format, matching, or ranking semantics beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('searches by taxpayer name' over 'Texas active franchise taxpayers' from Comptroller open data) and enumerates returned fields. It also scopes itself against related registries by declaring it is not a live SOS filing search and carries no officer data, which separates it from siblings like gov_sunbiz_florida_business or gov_delaware_business_search.

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 clear framing on when the tool fits: public open data, active franchise taxpayers, non-live, no officer data. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for live SOS filings or officer lookups, so the agent must infer the fallback rather than being routed to it.

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