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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that checkout moves money and is never retried once successful, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also adds atomic claiming and the charged action, providing concrete, non-obvious context an agent needs.

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 three sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds distinct value: the operation sequence, the reviewer-only restriction, and the irreversible money movement warning. It is front-loaded with the main action and remains highly readable.

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 core operation, financial consequence, irreversibility, and role constraint, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's risk profile. Some gaps remain regarding parameter details and explicit alternatives, but the output schema handles return values and the description covers the essential behavioral context.

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 description coverage is low (33%), so the description must compensate, but it does not mention any of the parameters (formData, formationId, filingMethodId). It adds no guidance about their meaning, required formats, or relationships to the purchase flow.

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 primary action: placing a CorpTools formation filing order. It specifies the operation sequence (claim order, add to cart, checkout) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like formation_get_formation_purchase_quote or formation_confirm_payment by emphasizing it executes the purchase.

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 implies a workflow (final purchase step) and mentions 'Reviewer-only' as a role restriction. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use a quote endpoint instead), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the reviewer constraint.

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