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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context on top: all fields optional, values saved as given (persistence semantics), partial-profile handling, and that the response's nextAction drives the next step. It stops short of covering repeated-invocation behavior (whether re-calling restarts or merges state), which matters for a 'start formation' mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero redundancy: purpose, call timing, safety constraint, and return routing, in that priority order. The most decision-relevant instruction ('call it as soon as you have an answer') 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 zero-required-param mutation tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: when to call, the empty-object case, the no-fabrication rule, and where the next step comes from. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the firstName/lastName pairing and the 'never invent' constraint on companyName. The description mostly restates those same constraints rather than adding syntax, format, or interaction rules beyond them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: 'Starts the user's Wyoming LLC formation', then enumerates exactly what gets persisted (legal name, country of residence, company name, formation state). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like submit_formation, start_new_company, or save_company_details, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 concrete call timing ('call it as soon as you have an answer') and a specific edge case ('call it with {} to set the state when nextAction says so'). It also states the conditional-save rule for the legal name. It never names an alternative sibling or says when NOT to use this tool, so 4 rather than 5.

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