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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this returns the authoritative government record and explicitly warns about the data-quality context (mirrors report stale status or wrong registered agent). However, it doesn't specify return format, whether the record could be empty/missing, or any latency/auth constraints. For a read-only lookup tool with no annotations, this is reasonably transparent but could add more edge-case behavior.

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?

Two well-organized sentences with zero waste. The first sentence enumerates the authoritative content, and the second justifies when to reach for this tool. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information (what it returns) 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?

For a simple 2-parameter lookup tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it gets back, why the official record matters (authority to settle disputes), and when to use it relative to web sources. The output schema absence is compensated by listing the full contents in the description. Sibling differentiation is handled.

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 and state_id) are already documented in the schema with format examples. The description adds the semantic context that these are the identifiers the state government uses, with concrete examples of state_id formats. This exceeds the baseline but doesn't add materially beyond what the schema conveys.

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 returns 'the full official record' with specific enumerated contents: current status, incorporation date, EIN, registered agent, officers, addresses, and filing history. It explicitly identifies the resource (official state record) and distinguishes its purpose from web sources. This differentiates it well from the sibling tools which focus on aggregates (age_distribution, geography, stats) and searches.

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 opens with 'You have already identified a company,' which explicitly frames when this tool should be used (after identification, likely after private_resolve or private_search). It also gives clear when-not context: it should be used to 'settle questions that web sources disagree about' and to correct stale mirrors. This is strong contextual guidance.

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