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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the meaningful semantic that an unreadable formation yields an 'unavailable' result rather than an error, and that retrying is the wrong response. The 'Read-only' wording duplicates the annotation but does not contradict it.

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?

Two sentences with the core preview behavior first and the failure handler second; no wasted content. Minor redundancy between 'without writing anything' and 'Read-only' and the unclear 'Lovie' term keep it just short of a 5.

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 one-parameter read-only preview with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the main behavioral edge case (unavailable formation). The remaining gaps are the undefined 'Lovie' term and lack of explicit routing among the closely named preview/hydrate siblings.

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% for the single companyId parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter shape. The description only references 'a company's' formation and adds no format, meaning, or edge-case detail for the parameter.

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 identifies a concrete operation: previewing what a company's 'Lovie formation' would carry into the intake, and explicitly says it writes nothing — which separates it from hydrate-style siblings. The 'Lovie' term is unexplained and possibly a typo, so this is clear but not a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit failure-mode directive: if the formation cannot be read, treat it as unavailable and collect facts directly rather than retrying. It does not name a sibling or explicitly state when to prefer this tool over equity_onboarding_hydrate_formation_carry, so tool-selection guidance is only implied by the read-only framing.

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