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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context beyond the schema: conduct record inclusion depends on the state publishing one. It also implies a read-only lookup, but it does not describe response format, exact-match behavior, or potential limitations.

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 very short with no filler and front-loads the core lookup purpose. The first clause is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly hurts clarity, but the overall economy is strong.

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 simple two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the main selection criteria and one important output nuance (conduct record availability). It lacks explicit return-format or error details, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that cert_number is the certification number and state is a narrowing code, naming NM, TX, and AZ. This gives both parameters meaningful semantics beyond their bare labels, though it does not specify formats or validation rules.

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 identifies a specific resource (certified officer) and lookup key (certification number), and adds scoping via state code. However, it is telegraphic ('A certified officer...') and does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool search_officers.

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 implies the use case: look up an officer when you have a certification number, optionally narrowed by a state code. It provides examples of valid state codes, but it does not state when to prefer this over search_officers or mention any exclusions.

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