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 description only needs to add context beyond that. It does: minimum inputs (name, county), that missing details become bracketed placeholders rather than errors, the statutory basis invoked, and a clear "general information, not legal advice" disclaimer. Only omission is any note on output length or formatting details.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then inputs, then statutory content, then audience, then exclusions — a sensible ordering with no filler. Slightly long, since the enumeration of statutory items and section numbers could be trimmed without losing routing value.

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?

All six parameters are schema-documented, safety is fully covered by annotations, and there is no output schema — the description fills that gap by describing the return value as template text with placeholders. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it names the two required inputs and explains that optional details (filing date, service-of-process name/address) are optional because the template substitutes bracketed placeholders. That placeholder behavior is not stated anywhere in the 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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Drafts the text of a New York LLC publication notice") with the key output shape stated up front (template with bracketed placeholders). It immediately distinguishes itself from llc_publication_verify_ad_compliance, get_county_pricing and get_process_guide, which do different jobs on the same subject matter.

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 affirmative use cases ("For people preparing their own newspaper submission, or anyone who wants to see what gets published") and explicit exclusions naming three sibling tools for compliance checking, pricing and process guidance. An agent has no ambiguity about routing.

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