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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (latest CDN state fees data) and the 5-year calculation horizon, adding useful context. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or how results are presented – leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the data-source detail earns its place. Could be considered terse but not padded.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional params and no output schema, so the description doesn't need to be extensive. Still, it lacks an explanation of the return format (e.g., a table of states vs a single-state number) and how 'state' alters the comparison, which an agent would need to set expectations. Given the low complexity, this is a minor but real gap.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'years' default by headline-ing 5-year total cost, but adds no new meaning for 'state' beyond the schema. It doesn't clarify the exact interaction between state and comparison output.

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 specific verb and resource: compares LLC formation and maintenance costs across US states. Clearly distinguishes from sibling comparison tools (401k, W2, LLM costs) by naming the exact domain. The 5-year total cost and data source reinforce purpose.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The domain is distinct among siblings, so usage is implied, but the description doesn't state when to prefer this over other comparison tools or whether to use it for single-state vs multi-state comparison. That inference is left to the agent.

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