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

Annotations only carry the generic safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive); the description adds the substantive behavior that matters: the exact comparison rules the Department of State applies (case, punctuation, LLC ending, leading 'The'), what the response contains, and the advisory caveat that the state has final say.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is checked and under what comparison rules, then return contents, then the caveat and usage trigger. No 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields (filed-form name, taken flag, similar existing names). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real interpretation value: it explains how the 'name' input is normalized and evaluated against the register, and 'NEW New York LLC or PLLC' clarifies the role of the kind parameter (llc vs pllc for licensed professions).

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?

States a specific verb (checks availability of a proposed name) on a specific resource (New York LLC/PLLC name register), and scopes it to NEW entities, which cleanly separates it from the sibling lookup_new_york_llc (an existing-entity lookup). An agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Use when someone is choosing a name or planning to form an LLC.' It does not name a competing sibling or state when NOT to use it, but the context is unambiguous for the naming/formation stage.

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