verify_contractor_registration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful scope details — ROC standing, trade classifications, $1,000,000 GL policy expiration dates, and municipal Additional Insured endorsements — and 'Audits/verifies' implies a read-only operation. However it says nothing about data sources, latency, freshness of ROC records, or failure modes when a contractor is not found.

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 one-line audit summary is well front-loaded, and the Args block earns its place given 0% schema coverage. The Returns section, however, is largely redundant because an output schema already exists and the description only says 'structured compliance verification report' without adding detail.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it adequately conveys the audit's scope across license and insurance dimensions. The main missing piece is operational context — when in a permit workflow to run the check and what happens on non-compliance.

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 0%, so the schema only supplies bare titles. The description compensates well by giving a definition and a concrete example for each of the three parameters (contractor name, city jurisdiction, trade permit type), which is essential to calling the tool correctly. Minor gap: no format constraints for jurisdiction strings.

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+resource: audits Arizona ROC standing and verifies trade classifications plus $1M GL insurance and endorsements. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like search_permit_requirements or estimate_permit_fees_and_sla, which deal with permit rules and costs rather than contractor compliance status.

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 never says when to invoke this versus alternatives, nor what prerequisites exist (e.g. must a permit application already exist?). The presence of jurisdiction and permit_type hints at a pre-permit screening context, but this is left entirely to inference.

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