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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying this is a combined price-and-explain lookup and by defining the semantics of each service (e.g. the Biennial Statement is the every-two-years report, no annual report). It does not describe the response shape, which slightly limits it.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose before the enumeration of services, and every sentence carries information (service definitions, the biennial date rule, the scope statement). The long parenthetical enumeration is dense but not redundant; slightly heavy for a three-parameter tool.

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 an informational price-and-explain tool with no output schema and only three params, the description covers what each option means and how to drive the date lookup. The annotations cover the read-only safety profile, so nothing critical is missing, though the returned price/explanation format is left implicit.

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 67% – filing_date and assumed_name are annotated, but the service enum carries no per-value description in the schema. The description compensates by defining each enum value (Biennial Statement, Certificate of Good Standing/Status, DBA/Assumed Name, county change) and by tying filing_date specifically to the Biennial case.

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 pair (prices and explains) and resource (other New York LLC filings), then enumerates the exact four services covered. It distinguishes itself cleanly from siblings like get_publication_price and quote_llc_formation by scoping to 'other' filings.

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?

'Use for any of these four' plus the per-service explanation tells the agent which enum value maps to which need, and the Biennial Statement sentence explains the extra filing_date input. It stops short of explicitly ruling out sibling tools (e.g. publication pricing), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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