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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing the cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), that failed calls are free, the data source (Division of Revenue) and refresh cadence (daily). Payment mechanics and billing behavior are exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the resource and coverage first, then search dimensions, then exclusions, then price. Dense but every clause carries information; only minor cost is that pricing detail is appended to an otherwise data-description sentence.

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 all six params documented in the schema, the description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: data provenance, freshness, scope boundaries, and the paid-call model. Nothing essential to correct invocation is 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 coverage is 100%, so each of the six parameters is already documented with examples in the schema. The description reinforces which fields are searchable, but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or paging semantics beyond what the schema states. 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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (Delaware business licenses), then enumerates the returned fields (business/trade name, license category, license number, validity period, address with coordinates). It explicitly distinguishes itself from corporate entity filings (Division of Corporations), separating it from siblings like ny_business_entity or texas_sos_business.

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?

States the searchable dimensions (name, trade name, license number, category, city) and gives a clear exclusion ('Corporate entity filings ... are not included'), which steers the agent away from using it for entity lookups. It does not name the sibling to use instead, so it falls short of explicit alternatives.

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