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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: it does not read or change any formation, and that a partial failure still returns results for the succeeded side. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing behavior on mixed results, which is valuable for an agent.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. It avoids redundancy and earns each sentence: what it does, when to use it, and a key behavioral note. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral caveat (partial failure). It doesn't mention prerequisites or alternative tools, but for a simple read-only check this is sufficient. The only minor gap is not explicitly defining 'available', but that is likely handled by the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'name' refers to the proposed company or brand name, which is the core meaning. However, it doesn't add details like case sensitivity, format, or what constitutes a 'match'. For a single simple parameter, this minimal clarification is adequate but not rich.

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 verb ('Checks'), resource ('company or brand name'), and scope ('availability as a US trademark and as a domain across common TLDs'). It also names the exact TLDs, making it distinct from sibling tools like formation_check_name and formation_check_domain_availability, which focus on separate aspects.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'Call this whenever the user proposes or evaluates a name.' It also clarifies it is informational only and notes partial failure behavior. While it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, the 'whenever' phrasing is strong and sufficient for a simple read-only check.

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