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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true declares the tool as read-only, but the description states 'no side effects beyond ensuring a CorpTools company record exists,' which implies a potential write or state change. This directly contradicts the annotation. Considering the contradiction, the score is 1.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the return content and followed by usage/behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 covers the return content, state scope, usage restrictions, and the side effect caveat. However, the contradiction with annotations creates ambiguity about the tool's actual safety profile, and details for DE/WY states are omitted. Most key aspects are present, but the mismatch is a notable gap.

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?

There is one parameter, formationId, with schema description 'UUID value wrapper.' The tool's description does not add explicit parameter semantics beyond implying it identifies the formation. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 that GetFormationPurchaseQuote returns specific data (CorpTools filing product, methods, parsed form schema, prefilled values, and missing required fields) for a formation, and it explicitly excludes DE/WY states. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like formation_get_formation_quote.

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 clear usage context: 'Reviewer-only' and 'no side effects' indicate when it is safe to use, and 'non-DE/WY states' implies it should not be used for Delaware or Wyoming formations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide broader when-not conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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