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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the $0.01 price, the two payment paths (x402 USDC on Base via _meta, MPP on the HTTP URL), the data-coverage boundaries, and notably that an empty result is still a paid 200. It does not discuss auth beyond payment or latency/rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 dense sentences with essentially no filler, though payment mechanics lead while the actual resource description is buried mid-paragraph. Front-loading the operation before the billing detail would read better, but nothing is wasted.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary. Given a paid, open-world, non-idempotent lookup, the description covers cost, payment channel, geographic coverage, result limits, field-level inclusions/exclusions, and the charged-empty-result edge case - everything an agent needs before spending money on the call.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that identification is by entity number OR an exact name (the exactness requirement is absent from the schema) and enumerates the valid states, but it adds nothing about format for entity_number beyond the schema example, and its 'up to 10 entities' claim does not map cleanly onto the single-valued name/entity_number properties.

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 verb+resource: retrieve a state business-registry record (status, formation, registered agent) by entity number or exact name, and explicitly scopes out officers and street lines. That is enough for an agent to separate it from license_verify or carrier_lookup, but it never names a sibling or states how it differs from them, so it stops short of 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?

It gives real selection constraints - only five served states (CO, CT, FL, NY, OR), up to 10 entities, and either an entity number or an exact name - which implies when the tool is usable. However it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance against the many sibling verification tools (carrier_lookup, license_search, nonprofit_verify), so routing 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.