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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered for free. The description adds real domain context: the price is a fixed one-time total covering two newspapers, affidavits, and the $50 state fee, and varies by county due to ad rates. It does not say what happens for an unknown county or unfound price, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then pricing composition, then exclusions. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess; no restatement of the name or title.

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 does not describe the response shape — e.g. whether a single price or a two-county comparison object is returned, or how an invalid county is signaled. Everything else an agent needs to select and call the tool correctly is present.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description's note about borough names ('Manhattan', 'Brooklyn') duplicates what the county parameter description already says. The compare_to parameter is only implied by 'two counties side by side' and adds no new syntax beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns LLC Publishers' all-inclusive price for New York LLC publication in a county') plus the comparison mode, and explicitly distinguishes itself from three siblings. An agent can identify this tool without opening any 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 rules with named alternatives: requirements → llc_publication_check_requirements, newspaper names/clerk contacts → llc_publication_get_county_info, process steps → llc_publication_get_process_guide. The usage condition (county from the Articles of Organization) is also stated.

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