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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses canonicality ('reads current server state and does not manufacture company facts'), idempotency ('safe to repeat'), and a confirmation boundary stating no additional confirmation is needed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 first sentence is dense and informative, but the description is padded with vague boilerplate such as 'plus every prerequisite stated above' and an overly broad 'Confirmation boundary' sentence listing unrelated categories. This adds confusion rather than value, and the labels (Canonicality, Idempotency, Confirmation boundary) make it feel systematic while containing filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description lists the return contents, notes the latest-formation fallback, and covers auth, canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation expectations. It is mostly complete, though exact parameter requirements and response structure are left implicit.

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 only 33% and the description does not explain companyId or formationId beyond the phrase 'or its latest formation' hinting formationId is optional. The _corply_context parameter is left entirely to the schema. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

Opens with a specific action and resource: 'Return the formation status for a company (or its latest formation)' and enumerates the exact payload components (founder-facing checklist, payment block, pendingSignatures, awaitingOthers, postIncorp tasks, webDashboardUrl, nextStep). This makes it clearly distinguishable from broad siblings like get_company_briefing or get_payment_pipeline_status.

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?

Gives a prerequisite ('authenticated active organization access') and a strong interpretive instruction ('trust nextStep over your own inference'), but does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling read tools. Usage context is implied by the formation-status scope rather than explicitly contrasted.

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