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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses what is checked, what a non-compliant result includes, what corrections may be suggested, and the limits of those suggestions. It also notes the tool is an automated check, not legal advice, which is important behavioral context.

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 description is front-loaded and every sentence carries useful information, but it is dense and lengthy for a single tool. It remains well structured, with purpose first and exclusions last.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough detail about results, compliance reporting, suggested corrections, entity coverage, and limitations. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears 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 meaning by linking entity type to the applicable statutory section and explaining foreign LLC-specific checks. It also clarifies that ad_text is an existing notice and llc_name is used for comparison.

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 states a specific action: checks an existing publication notice against statutory items by entity type. It clearly distinguishes this verification task from drafting, pricing, and requirements siblings. An agent can identify the tool's 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?

It explicitly says when to use it (a notice the person already has) and when not to use it, naming the exact alternative tools for drafting, prices, and requirements. This leaves 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.