Multi-State Childcare Licensing

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

Discloses that it starts the bound Apify Actor with the caller's token, may consume usage, waits up to 60s, returns up to 1,000 rows, and does not modify government records. This goes beyond the sparse annotations and provides clear expectations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first covers purpose and sibling differentiation, the second covers operational behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose, scope, behavior, and constraints. It notes cross-state vs Texas, usage consumption, timeout, and row limit, which are essential for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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% (all 7 parameters have detailed descriptions). The tool description itself does not add further parameter details, so baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb ('use for ... research') and resource ('childcare licensing, inspection, deficiency') and explicitly names the sibling tool it is not ('texas-childcare-licensing'). This clearly differentiates the tool's scope.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use for cross-state...' and when not: 'For Texas-only ... use texas-childcare-licensing instead.' Also notes operational constraints like 'may consume Apify usage' and 'waits up to 60 seconds.'

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