get_state_licensing_record

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job enumerating the data categories returned, but it omits any statement about auth requirements, read-only behavior, error cases, freshness, or what happens for an invalid license number. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but the description could be more explicit about operational behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with the most important information front-loaded. Every phrase contributes specific value, and there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary qualification.

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 single-parameter get-by-license-number tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the required input, the jurisdiction, the record type, and the key data elements returned. It does not describe response format or error handling, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents licenseNumber with 100% coverage and includes an example. The description only says 'by license number,' adding little semantic meaning 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 description names a specific verb (Retrieve) and a specific resource: official California CCLD state licensing record data for a child care facility by license number. It enumerates concrete content areas (inspection history, capacity, complaint visits, substantiated allegations, Type A/B violations, official comments), making it clearly distinct from the sibling tools like get_childcare_details or search_sf_childcare.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need official California CCLD licensing history or related regulatory data for a child care facility and you have its license number. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the license-number requirement and the official-state-record framing provide sufficient routing guidance.

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