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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: explains the no-SSN path leads to ~45 business days via paper filing, and describes the conversational collection flow. It does not contradict the annotations, and the destructive nature is already flagged, so the bar is lower.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by actionable instructions. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant restating of schema details.

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 nested info schema and output schema, the description covers the main workflow and lists most relevant fields. It omits some automatically-set fields like submittedAt/submittedVia, but these are likely system-managed. The behavioral details and clear field list make it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 directly explains the noSsn/ssnItin logic ('if they do not, set no_ssn and skip it') and enumerates the fields to collect (date of birth, employee counts, first wages date, etc.), which maps to the nested info object. This goes far beyond the schema's sparse descriptions and makes the parameters self-explanatory.

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 collects and saves EIN (SS-4) filing information, with a specific timing condition ('after the company is filed with the state'). This distinguishes it from the sibling getter tool formation_get_ein_filing_info, making the 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?

Provides clear context on when to use it (after state filing) and detailed procedural guidance (first ask for SSN/ITIN, set no_ssn if absent, collect fields conversationally). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses some exclusion guidance.

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