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

The description extensively discloses behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the $0.10 cost, x402 payment mechanism, the fact that empty results are still a paid 200, the hard limit of 25 results, active-first ordering, and total_matches field. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 information-dense and front-loads the critical cost/payment details. Every sentence contributes, though the trade lists are duplicated from the schema and add length. Still, it is well-structured and avoids filler.

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?

Combining the description with the input schema, output schema, and annotations, the agent has the required state/trade, optional city/zip, limit and active filtering, cost/payment, result cap, and sorting. The presence of an output schema covers return structure, and nothing essential for correct invocation is omitted.

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?

With schema coverage at 50%, the description partially compensates for undocumented limit and active_only behavior via 'Up to 25 results, active first.' It repeats trade lists already in the schema and adds no new detail for state. The city/zip parameters remain better explained in the schema, so the added value is mild.

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 identifies the tool as a search for licensed contractors by trade and city/zip, listing output fields. The phrase 'Up to 25 results, active first' signals a list-returning search, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling license_verify, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 what the tool searches (licensed contractors by trade and location) and the allowed states/trades, which implies when it is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as license_verify for single-license checks, leaving usage mostly implied.

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