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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, non-open-world). The description usefully signals that this yields a link rather than fetched company data, which matters behaviorally, but it never states that the agent must follow the link externally or what the response actually contains.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and follows with the purpose. No filler, though the clause list at the end is slightly dense.

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 simple, no-output-schema link tool, the description is nearly adequate, but it leaves the return contract ambiguous — does it emit a URL string, a list, or metadata? An agent cannot fully predict the result.

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 parameters (state, company) are already documented structurally; the description adds no format, casing, or optionality detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete resource (official Secretary of State business-search link for a US state) and the intent behind it (verify status, formation date, registered agent). It is distinguishable from siblings like search_company or company_profile, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

The phrase 'to verify a private company's status, formation date, and registered agent' implies why an agent would reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-a-sibling guidance, even though search_company and due_diligence_report overlap heavily with this intent.

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