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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false. The description adds that it 'Creates nothing and charges nothing' and that prices are 'priced live,' providing context about side effects and data freshness beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No filler 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main return contents, side effects, and when to use it. It does not explain edge cases like invalid or missing state, but the output schema provides return structure. Overall sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 schema has only one parameter (state) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'in a given state,' which clarifies the parameter's role, but it does not explain optionality (required=0), valid formats beyond the schema pattern, or behavior when omitted. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 returns formation costs for a given state including line items, filing fee, and total. It explicitly mentions live pricing and distinguishes from memory-based quoting, and the 'single one-time payment' note separates it from recurring pricing 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 guidance: 'Use this whenever the user asks about price instead of quoting figures from memory.' It also clarifies there is no plan or monthly/annual choice, which implicitly excludes certain use cases. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like formation_get_filing_fee, but the 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.