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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the authoritative source ('record a state government actually holds') and warns about mirrors providing stale status/wrong agent. However, it does not mention error conditions, rate limits, or response format beyond contents, making it solid but not exhaustive.

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 a tight two-sentence structure: the first sentence lists the payload and purpose, the second sentence provides the authoritative use case. No filler or repetition exists, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 serves as the sole guide to return values and does so thoroughly by listing all major data categories. It also provides a situational rationale (settling conflicting web data) that makes the tool's role clear in a workflow with siblings. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% — both parameters (state, state_id) have descriptive comments in the schema. The tool description adds nothing specific about parameter usage beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving the full official state record for an already-identified company, and enumerates specific contents (status, incorporation date, EIN, registered agent, officers, addresses, filing history). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing that identification has already happened.

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 description provides explicit context for when to use the tool: 'You have already identified a company and now need the full official record' and 'use it to settle questions that web sources disagree about'. It implies not for search/discovery, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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