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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: every figure carries a government source URL and a retrieved date, and it explicitly disclaims legal advice, filing, account opening, and payment.

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 tight sentences: scope first, then row contents and provenance, then explicit non-capabilities. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description still names the row fields and provenance. It is complete enough to call correctly, with the only gap being the absence of sibling-routing guidance, which is a usage rather than completeness concern.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not fabricate parameter behavior, and the fixed six-state scope is stated inline where a filter parameter might otherwise be expected.

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 resource and scope: read-only rows for six named states, each containing formation fee, annual fee/report, franchise-tax notes, and registered-agent requirements. An agent can tell what data comes back without opening the schema, though the 'compare' framing in the name is not reflected as an explicit comparative verb in the text.

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?

Usage is implied (pull state-level cost/fee data for these six states), and the closing sentence rules out adjacent behaviors like filing, opening accounts, or payments. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings such as assess_formation or get_compliance_deadlines, so routing remains inferential.

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