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

Annotations already flag readOnly and open-world, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits: a per-call price of $0.002 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, the fact that failed calls are not charged, and that owner phone/personal contact fields are deliberately excluded from results. That last privacy constraint is a real behavioral disclosure not present in structured fields.

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 and field list are front-loaded, then search modes, then exclusions, then price — a sensible order. It is information-dense without padding, though the payment sentence is long and slightly crowds the search guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers dataset scope, both entry points, privacy exclusions, and cost. Only minor gap is the limit/pagination parameter, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 all three parameters are already documented with constraints; the description only restates the businessName minimum length and its optionality relative to licenseNumber. It omits any mention of the limit parameter and adds no format or syntax 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?

Names the exact dataset ('TDLR - All Licenses'), the resource (Texas licence holders) and enumerates the returned fields (licence type, number, business name, county, expiry date). An agent can distinguish this from b2b_texas_sos_business or b2b_nyc_business_licenses purely from the description.

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?

It states the two search modes ('Search by business name (3+ letters) or licence number'), which implies when the tool applies, but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names a sibling alternative (e.g. the Texas SOS business registry) or a condition that would route the agent elsewhere.

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