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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that by listing the returned fields and clarifying that no availability verification is performed.

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 short, front-loaded with the core question, and followed by the returned fields and the key limitation. Every sentence contributes directly to selection or correct interpretation.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the return contents and states the important non-goal. An agent can select and invoke it correctly without needing further explanation.

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 input schema fully documents the single state parameter, including the two-letter USPS code pattern. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and operation: returning a state's LLC naming rules, including the required designator and statute citation. It also distinguishes itself from availability-check siblings by explicitly saying no name availability check is performed.

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 makes clear this is for looking up naming rules, not for checking whether a name is available. That negative guidance helps avoid confusion with check_llc_name, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool to use for availability checks.

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