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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations: real-time L&I data source, use of Kolmo's catalog, and explicit gap callouts (e.g. 'missing electrical specialty 02').

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the core function is front-loaded, the output behavior is described, and the data-source context is given in the final sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the annotations, 100% parameter schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is matched, what is returned, and the data sources involved. It does not discuss edge cases, but those are not necessary given the schema and output schema already present.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides; it only reinforces the overall matching purpose, which is the baseline expectation.

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 states a specific verb ('Cross-reference') and resource ('a WA contractor's L&I license specialty against a permit's required specialties'), and makes the result explicit: whether the contractor is qualified to pull/work the permit. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_contractor_license_status or check_permit_requirements.

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 provides clear context by explaining that it determines contractor qualification and combines real-time L&I data with Kolmo's permit catalog, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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