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

Discloses significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: it starts an Apify Actor using the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, returns at most 1,000 rows, and does not modify government records. This is especially valuable given readOnlyHint is false, clarifying that the operation has costs and side effects but is not destructive to source data.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core use case and sibling distinction; the second compactly lists the behavioral constraints. Every clause adds 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?

Covers purpose, routing, side effects, timeout, result cap, and non-modification of records. With no output schema, it could go slightly further on the exact row shape or fields returned, but 'source-linked rows' gives a reasonable baseline for an agent to proceed.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions for all four fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the hard result cap of 1,000 rows, which is not visible in the schema and directly affects how maxRecords should be interpreted.

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 scope (Texas-only) and data types (childcare operation, inspection, and deficiency evidence), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the multistate sibling tool. The title and resource are clearly differentiated without opening the 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 states when to use this tool (Texas-only evidence) and names the exact alternative for multi-state research: multistate-childcare-licensing. This gives an agent clear routing guidance with minimal inference.

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