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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context absent from structured fields: fee_verified false means the fee is an estimate, which prevents an agent from presenting estimated fees as authoritative.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and its contents front-loaded and the caveat placed second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return contents (states, LLC and corporation fees) and the meaning of the fee_verified flag. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering or whether non-US jurisdictions appear.

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 baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments and instead describes the shape of the returned data.

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?

Specific verb+resource (list every state) plus the payload it carries (LLC and corporation filing fees). It does not name the sibling get_state as the single-state alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: a no-arg enumeration tool whose purpose is self-evident. There is no explicit 'use this when' or pointer to get_state for a single state, though the note about fee_verified implicitly tells the agent how to interpret results rather than routing to another tool.

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