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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds material facts the annotations do not carry: ~20 s runtime with a 45 s timeout recommendation, and a pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls uncharged). That payment and latency disclosure is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs before invoking.

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 coverage are front-loaded, and the latency/price sentences earn their place. Minor waste in the redundant 'status, status and expiry dates' phrasing in the field enumeration, which reads as a typo rather than an error the agent can act on.

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 need not be explained; annotations cover read-only safety. The description closes the remaining gaps an agent faces here: query modes, latency budget, payment requirement, and what happens on failure.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the field list: it frames licenseNumber and name(+county) as alternative search modes and clarifies that county is a narrowing filter used with name, not a standalone key. That is real query-shaping guidance the flat schema does not convey.

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 ('Registered nurse license verification for Texas ... from the Texas Board of Nursing's open data') plus the exact fields returned. The 'Registered nurse' + 'Texas Board of Nursing' framing cleanly separates it from sibling physician/dental board tools such as health_state_medical_board_tx and health_dental_board_verify.

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?

'Search by license number or name (+ county)' gives concrete entry points, and 'Nursys has no open API' explains why this tool exists at all. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming an alternative lookup path, so it is clear context without full when-not-to-use guidance.

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