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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses return statuses, the checkout flow, the already_lifetime condition, idempotency behavior, and the fact that it reuses an open session. This is substantial behavioral context that helps an agent understand side effects and expectations.

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 essential information is front-loaded and clear, including price, timing, and return handling. However, the trailing canonicality, idempotency, and confirmation-boundary sentences read as generic boilerplate rather than tool-specific guidance, making the description longer and less focused than necessary.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains both possible return shapes, the next step to poll, the prerequisite that incorporation fee must be paid, and the policy on confirmation. It provides enough context for an agent to call the tool and handle the result 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?

The schema documents _corply_context but not formationId, and the description never explicitly explains what formationId should be or how to obtain it. However, the tool name, the term 'formation fee,' and the parameter name make it reasonably inferable in context, so it is minimally viable but not strongly supported.

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 states a specific action: upgrading a company's registered agent from first-year to lifetime, including price and tier context. It clearly differentiates this from the related polling tool await_registered_agent_upgrade and from other company-related tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool (after incorporation fee is paid, when founder has Essential tier) and what to do based on the response, including polling await_registered_agent_upgrade and not recharging if already_lifetime. It also states prerequisites and safe re-call behavior, leaving little to inference.

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