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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return fields (found status, active/inactive status, formation date, registered agent, entity type, source URL), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, rate limits, data freshness, or what happens when the entity is not found (e.g., does it return a 'not found' status or throw an error?). The description is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the return fields. It is concise and every part earns its place. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the purpose from the return fields), but it is efficient and clear.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no siblings), and the description covers the core purpose and return fields. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description could be more complete by explaining the meaning of 'found status' and 'active/inactive status' (e.g., what values are possible) and any edge cases. It is adequate for a simple lookup tool but leaves some behavioral details unspecified.

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 schema already documents both parameters (name and state) with examples and constraints. The description adds context by mentioning 'US business entity' and 'state registry', which reinforces the meaning of the state parameter, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying a US business entity exists and is active in a state registry. It specifies the resource (US business entity, state registry) and the action (verify), and lists the key return fields, making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool does.

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 implies the tool is for verification lookups in a state registry, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., only for US businesses, only for state registries, not for federal or other databases). With no sibling tools, the lack of explicit alternatives is less critical, but the description could still clarify the intended use case more directly.

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