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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read-only/idempotent tool, and the description adds substantial behavioral scope: statutory sections, consequences of late or missing proof, case law, common misconceptions, and a 'not legal advice' limitation. This tells the agent what the tool will and will not address beyond the safety 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 purpose is front-loaded and most content is relevant to an explainer tool, but the description is a dense, run-on paragraph enumerating many statutory details. It could be more scannable with structured bullets, though the excluded-use routing at the end is useful 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?

For a read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, legal caveats, edge cases, optional county context, and sibling alternatives. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions county-specific detail and maps LLC categories to statutes, but it does not clarify how the schema's llc_type enum values map to domestic, foreign, and PLLC distinctions, so 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?

States specifically that it explains New York LLC publication requirements, names the relevant statutory sections, and summarizes covered topics. It also distinguishes itself from pricing, county information, and process-guide siblings, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives for pricing, newspaper/clerk lookups, and the step-by-step process. It also notes that county can optionally be supplied for county-specific context, yielding clear routing guidance for the main overlapping siblings.

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