license.real-estate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the full burden. It describes the operation as verification and lists response fields, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or pagination behavior despite the schema having limit and offset. The description is somewhat transparent but lacks full behavioral detail.

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 two sentences long: the first establishes scope and entities, the second lists query and response fields. Every piece of information is relevant and there is no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core functionality but omits details about pagination, default values, and optionality of parameters. It does not mention that state is required and must be 'TX', or that limit defaults to 10. Thus it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 43%, so the description needs to add meaning. It does clarify that name allows partial matches and that licenseType and status are filters, but it does not explain the limit or offset parameters. The state parameter is already constrained by the schema's enum, so the description adds minimal value there.

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 states it is for US real-estate license verification, specifically Texas TREC for brokers, sales agents, and broker companies. It lists queryable fields (name, licenseNumber, licenseType, status) and return fields (type, number, holder, status, dates, supervising broker), making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like license.broker or license.medical.

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 specifies the scope (Texas only) and the available query parameters, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for Texas real-estate licenses but does not provide direct guidance on tool selection among sibling tools.

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