abc_search_licenses

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that city/county/zip/license_status filters are accepted but not applied server-side, state-specific API variations, and the need to check the verifiability block for compliance. It also notes the output includes license type, status, expiration, and suspension history.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently front-loads the main purpose and then provides use cases, state notes, and caveats. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) to improve readability.

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 tool's complexity (multiple states, varying APIs, filter limitations, compliance requirements), the description covers all necessary aspects: operation, usage context, state-specific behaviors, parameter limitations, and output fields. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the description still mentions key output fields.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explains that city/county/zip/license_status are not applied server-side, and specifies that trade_name, owner_name, address are search criteria. While not describing each parameter exhaustively, it adds valuable context beyond the bare schema titles.

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 tool searches US state ABC board databases for liquor licenses by business name, owner name, or address. It specifies the resource (licenses), action (searches), and scope (specific states and use cases), which distinguishes it from siblings like abc_lookup_license (likely a direct lookup) and abc_list_states (likely listing supported states).

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 concrete use cases ('before approving a distributor order, binding an insurance policy, or onboarding a merchant') and state-specific requirements (e.g., TX requires TWOCAPTCHA_API_KEY, NY only active licenses). However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool over siblings like abc_lookup_license, though the context implies it for name/address searches.

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