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

Annotations only include openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries some burden. It discloses that the ordering matters for the derived full legal name, but does not mention validation behavior, side effects of changing an existing ending, or permission requirements. The description adds some context but lacks richer behavioral details.

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 action and examples, and includes ordering guidance without redundancy or fluff. Every clause earns its place.

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 setter with an output schema, the description covers the what, why, and when. It specifies valid value source and ordering, which is sufficient for a focused operation. Minor gaps include lack of explicit error conditions or fallback defaults, but these are not critical given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 50%: formationId has a description but 'ending' does not. The description compensates for the ending parameter by defining it and providing examples, adding meaning beyond the schema's pattern and maxLength constraints. formationId is left to the schema's 'UUID value wrapper' description.

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 function with a specific verb ('Sets') and resource ('company's legal entity ending'), and provides concrete examples (e.g., 'Inc.', 'LLC'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like formation_set_company_name and formation_set_company_type by focusing on the suffix component of the legal name.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use valid endings from formation_set_company_type and set this BEFORE the company name to ensure correct derivation. This provides both a dependency and ordering constraint, making it clear when and how to use the tool relative to alternatives.

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