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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Missing source rows are never labeled revoked; only observed field transitions are returned.' This clarifies a key semantic nuance and the data pipeline origin, which helps set expectations.

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 description is three sentences: first sentence states the core purpose, second lists key filters, third discloses an important behavioral caveat. There is no wasted text; each sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With 5 optional parametersley off, a clear data source, and the key caveat about missing rows, the description covers most essential call context. The main gap is the lack of clarification on what 'material' means and no mention of output structure (though no output schema exists). Overall, the description is sufficient for a safe read-only tool.

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 mentions filtering by timestamp, change type, and trade, which maps to the 'since', 'change_type', and 'trade' parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. Parameters like 'limit' and 'offset' are not elaborated further.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'material Washington contractor-registration changes' from LiveDataLink's daily snapshot, which specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like wa_contractor_license_history or wa_contractor_verify, so it misses the top score.

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?

The description mentions filtering capabilities ('Filter by observed timestamp, change type, or trade') but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over wa_contractor_license_history or wa_contractor_verify. There is no explicit 'use this when' or alternatives comparison, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the name alone.

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