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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds substantive behavioral content beyond that: the 120-day deadline, that missing it suspends authority without a fine, that it is curable by publishing late, and that the requirement does not repeat.

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 substantive answer content is front-loaded before the usage and exclusion clauses, and every clause carries information. It is long, but the length is justified by the breadth of legal topics the tool must cover in one call.

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?

Covers the full scope an agent needs: statutory basis for both LLC types, mechanics, deadline, consequences, curability, and recurrence, plus routing to alternatives. With no output schema present, this description is sufficient to predict the response content.

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% and the single 'situation' enum is fully documented with a stated default, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's example phrases loosely imply situations but add no syntax or mapping detail beyond the enum, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (explains) and resource (NY LLC publication requirement), then enumerates the exact sub-topics covered (who publishes, how, deadline, penalties, recurrence). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_publication_price and lookup_new_york_llc as different tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use phrasings are quoted ('do I have to publish', 'I missed the deadline') and an explicit do-not-use clause routes price questions and entity-specific questions to named alternatives. Both sides of the routing decision are stated.

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