WA contractor license status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context: data source (public L&I data), update frequency (daily), and that it works for any contractor (including competitors). No contradictions with annotations. This exceeds the baseline required by annotation coverage.

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 concise—three sentences with no fluff. The core action and data source are front-loaded, followed by usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description includes the key details needed: scope (WA contractors), data source, update frequency, and usage scenario. Given the low complexity (single parameter) and output schema, nothing critical is missing. A minor gap is not mentioning potential limitations (e.g., only public data may not include all contractor info), but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'query', including format examples for license number or business name. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 the specific action: looking up a Washington State contractor's license, bond, and insurance status. It names the data source (public L&I data) and the scope (any contractor, including competitors), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_business_info or match_contractor_to_permit.

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 a clear use case: 'Great for verifying a contractor before hiring.' It implies when to use this tool (pre-hiring verification) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is sufficient, though exclusions are absent.

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