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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious context: that it covers tangential topics (bank account, doing business during publication, Section 206(a) participants) and the disclaimer 'General information, not legal advice.' It doesn't state the return shape (a text guide vs. structured steps), which keeps it below a 5.

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 scope, the situations, and the exclusions are all front-loaded and the exclusions land last where routing decisions are made. It is dense — the form-number enumeration (DOS-1708-f, DOS-1707-f, etc.) is borderline detail — but each clause maps to real content the guide contains, so little is wasted.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description covers content scope, triggering situations, and exclusions well. The only gap is not characterizing the output (structured step list vs. prose), which an agent might want to know before composing a response.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping the situation enum values to natural-language scenarios ('a new LLC, a foreign LLC, a PLLC, close to the 120-day deadline, or past it') and noting county-specific customization via the county clerk's designation. That gives an agent a reason to supply each optional parameter rather than omit it.

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 names a specific resource and verb ('Step-by-step guide to the New York LLC publication process') and enumerates the exact scope it covers: newspaper designation, six weeks of publication, affidavits, the four DOS forms by entity type, fees, and timeline. That level of specificity makes it unmistakable against every sibling tool.

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?

It lists concrete triggering situations (new LLC, foreign LLC, PLLC, close to or past the 120-day deadline) and then explicitly routes the agent away to three named alternatives for pricing, county lookups, and requirements/consequences. This is the strongest form of when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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