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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral note beyond that — the deals are "live" and state pricing holds only "while active" — signaling that returned figures can go stale. It does not say how current the data is or where it comes from.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the resource and ends with the usage trigger. The mid-sentence catalog of price categories is long but each item is informative, so there is little waste.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the entire burden of saying what comes back, and it does list the returned categories. It falls short only on freshness/provenance of the pricing and on how it differs from the more granular sibling calculators.

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 schema has nothing to explain and there is no parameter semantics to add. The description correctly avoids inventing inputs, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates its contents: LLC formation pricing, tax filing and ITIN prices, live state deals, banking guidance, and how to start. That is far more concrete than a tautology, though it never names the overlapping siblings (llc_cost_calculator, tax_filing_estimate, compare_llc_states) that could return similar numbers.

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 gives an explicit trigger: "Use when someone asks what Epics Deals charges or how to get started." There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for the calculator-style siblings, so the boundary with llc_cost_calculator and tax_filing_estimate is left to inference.

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