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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real substance by disclosing the pricing model (Albany county-change route, where the change is filed for the customer, vs. publishing in the LLC's own county) and accepted borough aliases. It stops short of describing rate limits, pricing freshness, or the shape of the returned breakdown.

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 the core purpose and outcome, then the two pricing routes, then the alternative-tool pointer, which is the right order. It is a bit heavy for three parameters and restates domestic/foreign coverage that the schema already carries.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return burden and does so by explaining what the price includes and how each route is composed. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so county, llc_type, and compare_to are already documented with examples and enum semantics; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces llc_type semantics and the purpose of the second county slightly, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (returns the all-in publication price) scoped to a county and LLC type, and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling lookup_new_york_llc. An agent can tell it apart from quote_llc_formation and explain_publication_requirement 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 explicit triggers ('Use for any cost question') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool named ('If the user names a specific LLC, use lookup_new_york_llc instead'). It also clarifies the optional comparison path, so both the default and extended usage are covered.

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