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

Annotations already declare destructive and openWorld, but the description adds the concrete stakes: the filing cannot be undone, external emails are dispatched to a third party for signing, and premature calls are rejected with a structured preconditions error. That is substantive context beyond the hints.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does and its side effects, the precondition for calling, and the refusal behavior. The most important constraint (irreversibility) is front-loaded in sentence one and the hard gate follows immediately.

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 an irreversible, externally visible action, the description covers effect, side channels, gating condition, and error semantics; the output schema handles return values. Nothing an agent needs before invoking 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 all three parameters are already documented, including the exact meaning of userConfirmed. The description reinforces userConfirmed by tying it to the summary-table presentation, but adds nothing for context or llm_model. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 chain: files the Wyoming LLC with the state via doola's registered agent and emails SS-4 and Form 8821 to the responsible party. The side effects alone distinguish it from siblings like start_formation or create_checkout_session, which prepare or pay rather than file.

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 an explicit gate: call ONLY after presenting a complete summary table and receiving an explicit 'submit' reply, with the {userConfirmed: true} flag. It also names the failure mode (PRECONDITIONS_NOT_MET with a `missing` list) so the agent knows what to expect if it calls early.

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