Supported state registries & licenses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further and discloses the substantive content of the response: dataset ids, coverage caveats, update frequency, and license/commercial-use terms — exactly the caveats an agent needs before relying on the data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, the related tool, and the payload contents with no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it enumerates the key fields (dataset ids, caveats, update frequency, license terms). It stops short of describing structure (e.g., grouping, ordering, counts), a minor but real gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (empty object schema), so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description does not need to compensate for any coverage gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('state business-entity registries'), and ties it directly to the sibling tool lookup_business_entity, so an agent can immediately distinguish this reference/catalog tool from the company lookup tools around it.

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 makes clear this is the catalog consulted for what lookup_business_entity covers, including coverage caveats and licensing constraints, which is the key usage context. It does not explicitly state when *not* to use it, but for a zero-parameter reference tool the intended invocation point is unambiguous.

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