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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the upstream source (data.texas.gov, refreshed daily), the exact set of returned fields including board action and practice address, and a cost model of $0.002 per successful call with failures not charged. It stops short of describing rate limits or paging behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loaded with what the tool does and where data comes from, then sibling routing, then price — a sensible priority order. The opening phrase largely echoes the title, and the billing sentence is long, but both carry information the agent needs, so waste is minimal.

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 a 10-parameter, zero-required, output-schema-backed lookup tool, the description covers source, freshness, returned fields, sibling routing and pricing. The only gap is operational guidance on paging/default limits and what an empty result means, though the schema and output schema partly cover that.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is already documented, including the important caveat that physician records carry no specialty. The description's mention of name/city/specialty/type searching restates the schema rather than adding new meaning such as matching semantics or paging interaction, 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?

States a specific verb-and-resource pair (license verification and disciplinary status lookups from TMB open data) plus the covered licensee types (physicians, PAs, acupuncturists). It also names the two closest siblings (health_state_medical_board_fl and _ny) and the state each serves, so an agent can disambiguate without opening any 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?

Explicitly frames the sibling tools as "for a different need" and gives the selecting condition for each (Florida verification, New York disciplinary actions). The search modes it supports — by license number, name, city, specialty or type — tell the agent which call patterns are valid for this tool.

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