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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the per-call price ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana, or Arc) and the fact that failed calls are not charged. It does not describe pagination behavior or result caps, though an output schema exists to cover return shape.

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?

The core purpose and covered states are front-loaded in the first clause, and nothing is redundant filler. The long enumeration of license types and returned fields is dense but earns its space by telling the agent what data is available.

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?

For an 8-parameter read-only lookup with a full output schema, the description covers data sources, supported states, search modes, defaults, pricing, and sibling routing. Missing only explicit paging guidance and confirmation of which identifiers are required jointly vs. alone.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description only restates the same search modes (license number, name, city) and the active-by-default behavior already present in the activeOnly field description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (dental license verification) plus the exact data sources (Colorado and Illinois state open data) and the fields returned (license number, name, status, discipline). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the Florida and Texas medical board siblings, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 search modes (by license number, name, or city) and a default behavior (active licenses only), and names two sibling tools with the condition that selects them ('a different need'). It stops short of saying when NOT to use this tool, e.g. for nursing licensure or non-CO/IL dental licenses, which other siblings on the server cover.

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