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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is a review checkpoint, not a document generator, does not produce a downloadable link, and triggers a follow-up approval call. The annotation set is minimal (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then critical caveats and next-step instruction. Every clause adds value without redundancy. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description fully covers the workflow, limitations, and relationship to the next step. It even includes the important 'do NOT present a download link' warning, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter formationId with a description and 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the baseline is 3 per the rubric when schema coverage is high. No additional semantic value is provided by the description.

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 verb+resource: 'Prepares the Certificate of Formation/Incorporation as a review checkpoint before filing.' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from a download or official document generation, and the contrasting sibling formation_approve_certificate is named, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'This is a confirmation step, NOT a downloadable document' and instructs to summarize details for review, then call formation_approve_certificate only after explicit confirmation. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and names the alternative tool.

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