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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but no readOnlyHint. The description discloses the mutation ('Sets') and valuable behavioral details: the default values (10,000,000 shares at $0.0001 par), the option for custom structure, and the return of total authorized capital. This adds context beyond the schema and annotations.

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: purpose+return, parameter guidance, and constraint. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy. Key information is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return fields. It covers purpose, parameter usage, and the C-Corp constraint. It could mention edge cases (e.g., whether prior structure is overwritten), but for the given complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 only 25% (formationId only), so the description carries the burden of parameter clarity. It explicitly maps the schema parameters (useDefault, authorizedShares, parValue) to their roles, explains the conditional relationship between them, and provides concrete example values. This fully compensates for the sparse schema 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Sets the C-Corp share structure.' It also mentions the return value (total authorized capital), distinguishing it from other formation_set_* tools. The 'C-Corp only' qualifier further clarifies scope.

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 context by explaining the two modes: use_default=true for standard setup or use_default=false with custom parameters. The 'C-Corp only' note serves as an exclusion for non-C-Corp entities. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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