Texas Childcare Licensing

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which is incomplete without context. The description adds critical behavioral details: it 'starts the bound Apify Actor with the caller's APIFY_TOKEN,' 'may consume Apify usage,' 'waits up to 60 seconds,' and 'returns at most 1,000 source-linked rows without modifying government records.' This explains the side effects (Apify usage) and safety (no modification) far beyond annotations. It loses one point because 'may consume Apify usage' is vague about cost/limits, but the core transparency is strong and contradicts nothing.

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. The first front-loads purpose, the second routes to a sibling alternative, and the third summarizes side effects and constraints. Every sentence earns its place, with zero fluff. The most important scoping (Texas-only) is first, and the alternative is mentioned immediately after, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that returns data without an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: scope (Texas), the kind of data (childcare operation, inspection, deficiency evidence), the side effects (Apify usage), the timeout (60 seconds), the cap (1,000 rows), and the safety (no modification of records). With all 4 parameters having 100% schema coverage and enums not applicable, the description is complete for an agent to decide and call the tool. The lack of an output schema is compensated by describing what the rows represent ('source-linked rows').

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 each of the 4 parameters is documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the Texas-specific context and adds the behavioral context for maxRecords (the default behavior of capping at 1000 source-linked rows) and minHighDeficiencies (compliance screening). It doesn't repeat type/schema info but adds usage nuance, so a 4 is appropriate — a 5 would require description-specific clarification not already in the schema, but the description handles the main gaps well.

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 it's for 'Texas-only childcare operation, inspection, and deficiency evidence,' distinguishing it from the multistate sibling. It specifies a concrete scope and action. This clearly differentiates from siblings like 'restaurant-inspection-scores' or 'leie-exclusion-screening' without needing to open the schema.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool, 'multistate-childcare-licensing,' and provides the condition for choosing between them: use this for Texas-only, use the other for multi-state. This gives an agent clear routing logic with no inference needed.

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