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

The description adds no behavioral traits or operational constraints beyond what the annotations already convey (e.g., readOnlyHint). It only describes the resource content, offering no insight into its operational behavior.

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 definition is extremely concise and efficiently covers the three key areas of pricing information in a single, direct sentence.

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 parameter-less tool, it is highly complete regarding *what* information is available. A marginal deduction is given because financial pricing tools often require context on currency or update frequency, which 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?

Since the input schema has zero parameters, the description provides all necessary context by explicitly defining the scope of the pricing data included (packages and fees), which is maximal semantic value for a parameter-less tool.

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 identifies the subjects of the pricing information (Formation packages, trademark package, and USPTO fees). It is highly specific about the domain of the data, though it does not explicitly state *how* these relate to the other quote sibling tools.

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 definition provides almost no guidance on when to use this tool. Given the existence of multiple 'quote' sibling tools, the agent is left to infer if this general pricing tool should be used instead of a specific quote tool.

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