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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: nothing is charged here, the payment happens externally on a secure checkout, and the output is a link rather than a completed order. It does not explain link expiry or reuse, but the annotation set covers idempotency.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the billing clarification and the usage gate. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states what is returned (the order link) and clarifies the no-charge behavior, which is the key thing an agent must convey to a user before invoking. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 50%: llc_name is documented in the schema, but the service parameter has only an enum with no per-value explanation. The description adds only a generic mention of 'a service' and the llc_name prefill, so it does not compensate for the undocumented enum semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and artifact: it returns a link to start an order for a given service, prefilled with the LLC name. This is clearly distinct from siblings that quote or price services (quote_llc_formation, get_publication_price), so an agent can route without opening the 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?

It gives a clear gating condition -- 'Use only when the user says they want to go ahead' -- which separates it from the quoting/price tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use beforehand (e.g., quote_llc_formation), so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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