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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: pricing is 'all in with the state fee,' each service is glossed, and the filing-date-to-due-month behavior is disclosed. No auth or rate-limit notes, but that is minor here.

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, then the service list, then the two edge notes. Parenthetical glosses are dense but each carries distinct information; nothing is 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?

For a three-parameter tool with one required enum and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the enum's four members, and the conditional parameter behavior. The response shape (price plus explanation) is implied by 'prices and explains' rather than stated, which is the only small gap.

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%, and the description's parameter hints ('Biennial only' for filing_date, DBA-only assumed_name) largely restate the schema's own descriptions. It adds only a marginal output-facing detail, that the filing date yields the due month, which the schema does not say. Baseline 3 is right.

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 pair (prices and explains) and enumerates the exact resource set: Biennial Statement, Certificate of Good Standing, DBA, and county change. The word 'other' scopes it away from the publication-pricing siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Ends with an explicit routing instruction ('Use for any of these four') and gives a conditional for the Biennial Statement case. It never names a competing sibling (e.g. get_publication_price) to explicitly exclude, so it stops short of a 5.

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