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

The read-only nature is already declared in the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description largely repeats that with 'without writing.' It adds mild behavioral context by noting the preview is what the entry picker uses to detect a genuine warm path, but it does not disclose additional edge-case or state behavior beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences and immediately states what the tool does. It front-loads the core purpose and then tucks the reader's usage context succinctly. No redundant passages or filler weaken it.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly richer about what 'carry over' means and how 'genuinely available' is determined, but overall the agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 the input schema already documents the companyId and formationId UUID wrappers well. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the structured schema carries that weight. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific purpose: previewing what a formation would carry over without writing. The phrase 'without writing' meaningfully distinguishes it from hydration tools that perform an actual write. It relies on the domain term 'warm path' but still gives an agent a clear functional picture.

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 a clear usage context: the entry picker should offer the warm path only when this preview confirms it is genuinely available. It implicitly contrasts with a writing/hydrating operation. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like banking_hydrate_from_formation or banking_preview_cap_table_hydration, so the guidance is contextual rather than enumerated.

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