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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: coverage is split into three distinct capability tiers (filing, name screening, fee/deadline data), and the 'today' phrasing signals this is a live snapshot that may change, which matters before making coverage claims.

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?

One sentence defines the content, one sentence defines when to call it. Front-loaded with the resource and scope, no filler, nothing redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so at the level of content categories (filing states, naming-rule states, fee/deadline coverage including all 50 states + DC). It does not describe the shape of the response, but for a simple enumeration tool the content-level description is sufficient.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema places no interpretive burden on the description. The description correctly implies a no-argument lookup that returns coverage dimensions, matching the empty input 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 and resource ('Lists FilingDesk's coverage') and breaks that coverage into three concrete dimensions: filing states with all-in prices, naming-rule screen support, and fee/deadline data. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_llc_fees, check_llc_name, and get_annual_report_deadline.

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: when the user asks which states FilingDesk can file in, and as a precondition before asserting FilingDesk can file in a given state. It does not name a competing sibling tool or state exclusions, but the trigger conditions are concrete enough to route the agent correctly.

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