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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds 'Live from the state SOS portal,' which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose caching behavior or retryId details—those are only in the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core verb and resource, lists outputs, states the data source, and provides a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and including an example call. Annotations cover safety and read-only behavior. It lacks explicit sibling routing and error-condition guidance, but for a simple read-only lookup this is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's example shows an invocation pattern and clarifies that searchQuery accepts a name or SOS ID (already in schema), but it adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('Secretary-of-State registration & status'), and lists the key returned fields. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cobalt_tin_verify or company_facts, but the resource and field list make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage through its purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The example shows how to call it, but there is no 'when-not' or alternative routing, so guidance is only implied.

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