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

The description adds only that this is a purchase, which mirrors the tool name and purpose; it does not disclose side effects such as charges, external integration behavior, non-refundability, or whether the action is a one-time or repeatable event. The destructiveHint annotation already carries the destructive signal, but the description itself adds little behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 a single sentence with no filler words and is appropriately front-loaded: it directly names the resource and action. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 purchase action with a destructiveHint and external vendor context, the description is too terse. It does not explain what happens when the purchase is initiated, what the output represents, or how this relates to the surrounding formation workflow. The output schema removes the need to describe return values, but the missing usage and side-effect context is significant for a financial action.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter, including the 'UUID value wrapper' description. However, the tool description contributes no additional meaning about how to obtain or format the formationId, and the schema's own description is minimal.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it triggers a 'CorpTools registered-agent purchase.' It is clear enough to distinguish this from the obvious siblings like 'formation_purchase_formation' and 'formation_set_registered_agent.' It falls short of a 5 because the word 'triggers' leaves the actual transaction outcome slightly ambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as formation_set_registered_agent or formation_get_formation_purchase_quote. It does not mention prerequisites, sequencing, or payment context. An agent must infer the intended use purely from the name and title.

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