Florida DBPR Vacation-Rental Licenses

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that invoking this tool starts a bound Apify Actor, uses the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, caps results at 1,000 rows, and does not modify government records. These side effects, latency expectations, and limits are exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations alone do not convey.

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 with no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded: scope first, alternates second, behavioral side effects last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description plus the fully documented schema is enough for an agent to decide to call the tool and fill in parameters correctly. However, there is no output schema and 'source-linked rows' only broadly describes the return, so a bit more detail about returned fields would make it 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 100%, so all seven parameters, including enums, defaults, and filter semantics, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence is an explicit directive: use for Florida statewide DBPR vacation-rental and lodging-license evidence. It then names sibling tools for adjacent cases (municipal permits and code violations), so an agent can distinguish it from str-permit-registry and property-violations immediately.

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 states the exact scope (Florida statewide DBPR vacation-rental/lodging licenses) and gives explicit 'use X instead' routing for municipal STR permits and code violations. This satisfies both when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria in a compact way.

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