Oregon CCB Contractor License Search

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

The Behavioral Transparency section discloses execution model (synchronous network call via a named Apify Actor), side effects (billed Actor run and dataset creation on the user's Apify account), authentication requirements (APIFY_TOKEN), and latency limits (10-30 sec typical, 120 sec timeout). This adds significant context beyond the annotations, which only state readOnly/destructive hints, and it does not contradict them.

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 organized into clear labeled sections (purpose, Behavioral Transparency, Usage Guidelines) with bullet points. Every sentence carries operational or routing value; there is no filler or redundant elaboration. It is longer than minimal but justified by the tool's billing, auth, and alternative-routing complexities.

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 paid, network-backed search tool with three parameters, the description covers execution, billing side effects, authentication, latency, disambiguation from siblings, and output behavior (via existing output schema). Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call and how to invoke it is missing.

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 three parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema—its mention of optional endorsement/insurance/complaint details merely echoes the include_details schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('official Oregon Construction Contractors Board licence records'), and a scope ('by contractor or business name'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools in the Usage Guidelines by naming 'us_contractor_license_search', 'california_contractor_license_search', and 'us_business_entity_search', so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 contains a dedicated Usage Guidelines section with explicit 'When to use', 'When NOT to use', and 'Named alternatives'. It lists positive use cases (vetting, verification, lead generation), exclusions (California-only, general registrations, legal determinations), and the exact alternative tools to pick instead, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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