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

The description discloses the tool's return behavior (returns parts and derived full_name) and the prerequisite of setting the entity ending first. Annotations include destructiveHint false but no readOnlyHint, so the mutation aspect is clear from 'Sets.' This adds value beyond the sparse annotations, though it could mention overwrite behavior or error cases.

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 action and return value, followed by essential workflow steps. There is no redundancy or extraneous detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has an output schema (though not shown) and the description covers the action, return parts, and the necessary preceding/following steps, it is contextually complete for the agent to invoke it correctly within the formation process.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (name: 'Human-readable name (1-255 Unicode chars)', formationId: 'UUID value wrapper'). The description adds meaning by explaining how the name parameter is decomposed into base_name and entity_ending, giving semantic context beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Sets the company name' and elaborates on what the action entails, including the returned parts (base_name, entity_ending, full_name). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the sequence involving formation_set_entity_ending and formation_check_name, making the tool's 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Set the entity ending first with formation_set_entity_ending' and 'After setting the name, call formation_check_name to verify availability.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and how it fits into the broader workflow, which is more than adequate.

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