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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: true), so the description's bar is lower. It adds the useful behavioral context that the check is scoped to 'the selected state' derived from the formation. However, it does not describe what the check consults, whether it is real-time, or what 'availability' formally means—though with read-only annotations these gaps are minor.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste: it states the action, the resource, and the scope. The redundant subject 'CheckName' adds little and reads like a code-ident string dropped in, but the description is otherwise tightly scoped and front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials. However, it omits cross-references to the near-twin check_company_name_availability and fails to situate the check within the formation naming workflow, leaving the agent uncertain about when this tool is the right one among 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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3. The schema documents formationId as a UUID wrapper, and the description adds no additional meaning about the parameter—it only implies that the formation carries state context. The description does not compensate, but the schema alone is sufficient for this single 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 states a specific verb ('checks') and resource ('company name availability') with a meaningful scope qualifier ('in the selected state'). This distinguishes it from the sibling formation_check_domain_availability, which checks domains rather than company names. It loses the top score because it does not explicitly disambiguate from the similarly named check_company_name_availability sibling and the phrasing 'CheckName checks' is slightly awkward.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related check_company_name_availability or how it fits into the name-setting flow implied by formation_set_company_name. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer which check tool is appropriate.

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