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

Discloses that it runs anonymously with no sign-in, returns formation_id and steps, is idempotent on retry (resumed=true), and that signing in later claims the in-progress formation. This adds significant context beyond annotations (openWorldHint: false, destructiveHint: false), which only signal non-destructive behavior.

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?

Although long, each sentence delivers essential operational guidance (auth, resume, force_new, follow-up conversation, formation_id continuity). The primary purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity of company formation, the description covers anonyminity, direct usage, resume semantics, force_new, how to handle resumed=true (tell user which company), what to do with formation_id, and the sign-in retry flow. It makes the tool fully actionable without requiring additional 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?

The description offers detailed semantics for forceNew ('the only time to set it; never set it to retry'), which compensates for the low 25% schema coverage. However, source, sessionId, and referralCode are only exposed via schema enum/pattern and are not explained further, leaving partial coverage.

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 entry point for a new company formation' and instructs to call it directly when the user wants to start, create, or form a company. It clearly distinguishes itself from list/get tools by noting they require auth and are for existing records.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this DIRECTLY whenever the user wants to start, create, or form a company or formation') and when-not-to-use alternatives ('Do NOT call company_get_my_companies or formation_get_list_formations first'). Also explains retry safety, force_new usage, and one-call-per-formation rule.

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