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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses external-provider dependencies, caching behavior ('Previously rejected names return false without another provider call'), and the advisory/non-blocking nature of results. It also states prerequisites and the confirmation boundary. This adds substantive behavioral context above what readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint alone convey.

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 core description is front-loaded and clear, but it is buried in generic boilerplate: 'Canonicality', 'Idempotency', 'Confirmation boundary', and 'plus every prerequisite stated above' add little tool-specific value and make the description unnecessarily long. The repeated generic instructions violate the 'every sentence earns its place' standard.

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 description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly: it explains the provider call, the return values, caching, prerequisites, and how to treat results. It also tells the agent not to add recovery calls. Minor gaps remain around the exact output structure, but with no output schema present the description still covers the essential behavior.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it explains selectedName ('Pass the currently saved selectedName exactly') and similarNames ('up to five supplied alternatives', 'preserve the desired alternative order'). formationId is implicitly tied to 'the formation's saved company name', and _corply_context is already described in the schema. The key semantics are covered despite the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the formation's saved company name and up to five supplied alternatives through OpenSOSData.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming its exact scope and external provider, and it explains the output semantics (true/false/null) which further pins down what the tool does.

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 gives context on when to use the tool: it is advisory, never blocks document generation, and the mandatory Delaware check is explicitly handled elsewhere ('Corply operations performs the mandatory Delaware check immediately before filing'). It also instructs the agent to trust the returned output rather than adding a state-recovery call. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the usage boundary is clear.

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