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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety behavior is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that the data is live Department of State data refreshed daily and by enumerating the returned fields (entity type, county, filing date, 120-day deadline with days remaining/elapsed, biennial statement month, all-in price). With no output schema present, that disclosure of result content is exactly the extra context needed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the source and match key, then usage conditions, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the data provenance, freshness, the full set of returned fields, and the routing rule to the sibling tool. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it 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% with a single documented parameter, so the schema already explains that 'query' accepts a name, a name prefix, or a DOS ID. The description restates the same name-or-DOS-ID distinction ('or the start of it') without adding format, normalization, or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Searches New York State's live business register ... by LLC name or DOS ID') and names the authoritative source and update cadence, so the agent knows exactly what is being looked up. It also implicitly separates itself from formation-side siblings by scoping to already-formed entities.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use whenever the user names a specific LLC or asks about their own deadline, county or price') and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Do NOT use for a name that is not formed yet (use check_llc_name_availability)'). Both the when and the when-not are covered with the routing target spelled out.

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