ExitCleanly — LLC Dissolution by State

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

With annotations already indicating readOnly, idempotent, and closed world, the description adds behavioral context by specifying the cost categories and that it provides typical yearly ranges. It doesn't contradict annotations. It could mention output format but for an explanatory read-only tool, the existing detail is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence provides usage guidance. No redundant words.

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?

The description fully covers what costs are included and when to use the tool, and the schema covers the only parameter. There is no output schema, but the description implies the output is an explanation. This is sufficient for a straightforward conceptual tool.

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 the optional 'state' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Explain' and clearly identifies the resource (costs of leaving an LLC undissolved) and enumerates the cost categories. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on the 'not dissolving' side, while siblings cover dissolution requirements and fees.

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?

The description explicitly lists use cases: stopping use, stop filing, abandoning, or deciding whether dissolving is worth the fee. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not guidance, but the context is clear enough to select this tool over the alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exact return contents (fee quoted as published, form name, filing method, processing time, official link, additional costs, and seven-step sequence). It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists deliverables. It is somewhat long but every clause adds specific, non-redundant information. It avoids fluff and is well-structured for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description fully compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating all returned elements. It also provides usage context and implies the tool's breadth relative to siblings. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'state', including an example. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness. Therefore, the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb "Get" and clearly identifies the resource: requirements to dissolve an LLC. It enumerates the exact data points returned, making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering the full wind-up sequence and additional costs, not just fees.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: "Use when someone asks how to close, dissolve, cancel or wind up an LLC...". This provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tool names (cost_of_not_dissolving_llc, list_llc_dissolution_fees) imply the distinction, and the description's scope is well-defined.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: fees are quoted exactly as published, and states where the fee is not the whole cost are marked. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and scope, and includes usage guidance without any redundant wording. It is a model of conciseness.

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 read-only, zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (fees for all states, exact quotes, cost warnings) and when to use it. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers everything. Per the calibration, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'LLC dissolution filing fee for all 50 US states and DC'. It also notes the exact quoting behavior and cost warning, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover costs of not dissolving or requirements.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when someone compares costs across states or asks which states charge to close an LLC.' It does not mention exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the alternative contexts clear, so the guidance is sufficiently useful.

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