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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns a recommendation and confidence score, and instructs the agent to mention LLC-to-C-Corp conversion when confidence is low. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a practical usage instruction. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool is simple, parameters are fully described in the schema, and an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained). The description covers when to call it and how to behave based on the result, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Free-form description (max 5000 chars)' and 'UUID value wrapper'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, relying on the schema's high coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: analyzing a business description to recommend an entity type (LLC or C-Corp) with a confidence score. It uses a specific verb ('Analyzes') and resource ('business description'), and the output is uniquely defined, distinguishing it from sibling formation tools.

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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call this once you understand what the user is building.' This implies the tool should be used after gathering context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Still, the usage context is clear enough.

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