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

The annotations only provide openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry most of the behavioral burden. It adds useful context that warnings arise from choosing an entity type against a recommendation and that acknowledgment is a prerequisite, but it does not disclose whether the action is idempotent, reversible, or exactly what state is changed beyond 'acknowledged.'

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 concise sentences with no filler. The action and example come first, followed by the key prerequisite condition. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description explains the core purpose and when the tool is required, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether warningTypes is optional in practice, what values it accepts, and how the agent should obtain the list of raised warnings before calling this tool.

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 only 50%: formationId is described only as a 'UUID value wrapper' and warningTypes has no schema description. The description gives semantic meaning to warningTypes via the entity-type warning scenario, but it does not clarify accepted warning type values or the exact role of formationId beyond what the name implies.

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 ('Acknowledges') and a precise resource ('entity-type warnings'), with a concrete example (LLC versus C-Corp). It clearly scopes the action to the company-type warning flow, making it distinguishable from the many formation mutation and retrieval siblings.

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 explicitly says this is 'Required before proceeding whenever warnings were raised while setting the company type,' which tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not name an alternative or explicitly state when not to use it, but the condition is clear enough to route the agent correctly.

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