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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the payment model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc; failed calls not charged) and that return depth varies by query mode — license-number lookups add issue/expiry dates, address of record, discipline and prescriber flags. Those are material behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the 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 core capability and coverage before alternatives and pricing, and every sentence carries information. The single dense paragraph with nested colons/semicolons is harder to scan than it could be, but there is little filler.

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?

Given an output schema already exists, the description need not explain return fields — yet it briefly does, and it adds pricing, query-mode behavior and cross-state routing. An agent has everything needed to decide between this and the TX/NY siblings and to choose a query shape.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by framing the two query modes ('by name (and city) or license number') and by tying the richer result set to the licenseNumber parameter. It adds no detail on the status or city parameters beyond the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 — search Florida DOH/MQA health-care license records by name/city or license number within a named board — and enumerates the boards covered. It also names the sibling tools for Texas and New York, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from other state board tools.

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?

Explicitly routes agents to health_state_medical_board_tx and _ny 'for a different need', which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not address overlap with other license-related siblings on the server (e.g. health_nursing_licensure_nursys, health_dental_board_verify, health_npi_provider_registry), so exclusions are incomplete.

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