cos_licensing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, establishing this as a read-only operation. The description adds value by disclosing the return format ('license names, types, issuing agencies, and application URLs'), which is not covered by annotations or an output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second lists return value components, and the third provides usage context. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers purpose, return contents, and use case. Given the low complexity and the presence of readOnlyHint, no additional behavioral or contextual information seems necessary.

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% with both parameters (state and keyword) fully described. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond restating the purpose ('by state'), so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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's function: 'Look up licensing and certification requirements for an occupation by state.' This uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a clear resource ('licensing and certification requirements') and scope ('by state'). It also lists return contents ('license names, types, issuing agencies, and application URLs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cos_occupation_search which focuses on occupation search.

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 for use: 'Useful for understanding state-specific professional requirements.' This implies when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance, which prevents a top score.

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