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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses pricing ($0.002 USDC per successful call), payment rails (x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), and the failure policy (failed calls not charged) — exactly the kind of cost/auth context annotations cannot express. It also discloses ordering and per-portal refresh lag.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by constraints and pricing. It is dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; the enumerated return-field list is the only mildly redundant part given an output schema exists.

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 paid, read-only, multi-jurisdiction lookup, the definition covers jurisdiction limits, ordering, refresh cadence, cost model and failure charging. With an output schema present, it need not explain return structure, so nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'name' is a partial contains-match and that 'limit' is per state, but it does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: business entity search across official Secretary of State open data, with the exact jurisdictions (CO all entities, NY active corporations, OR active businesses). Scope, ordering (newest first) and match type (name contains-search) make the capability unmistakable, and no sibling tool covers business registry lookup.

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 hard boundary ('Only these three states') and the data-freshness expectation, so an agent knows when this tool cannot answer a query. It does not name an alternative path for other states or non-registry entity lookups, which is the only missing piece.

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