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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations by revealing that it starts an Apify Actor, consumes caller usage via APIFY_TOKEN, may wait up to 60 seconds, returns at most 1,000 rows, and does not modify government records. This meaningfully adds cost, latency, limit, and side-effect information that annotations do not provide.

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 tight sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, exclusions come second, and behavioral constraints are concentrated in one dense final sentence. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters, the description covers the key operational facts: scope, exclusions, auth, cost, latency, row limit, and non-modification. The rich input schema fills in jurisdiction options and parameter details. The only gap is absence of output row structure, but no output schema exists and the description still gives a useful high-level output expectation.

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%, and the schema itself already gives rich parameter explanations including date patterns, enum values, defaults, and bounds. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but since the schema carries the load, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Use for official restaurant inspection scores, violations, and facility-history research in supported jurisdictions.' It also explicitly excludes related areas ('Do not use for general property-code violations or childcare inspections'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools such as property-violations and childcare licensing.

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 clearly states when to use the tool and gives explicit negative guidance for property-code violations and childcare inspections. It stops short of naming the exact alternative sibling tools, but the intended routing is clear enough for an agent.

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