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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it declares the tool read-only and states that 'no payment, KYC, or filing is triggered', plus 'FREE, no API key', which is critical since the response advertises autonomous USDC payment and card payment. It does not disclose response size, pagination, or whether pricing data is live versus static, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the value proposition, then the tier enumeration, then the call-order rule and read-only guarantee — a sensible sequence. The long parenthetical listing Nevis contents is dense but each item is substantive; the 'FREE, no API key' opener is slightly promotional but useful given the paid-payment context.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by enumerating intake fields, inclusions, payment methods, legal basis, charter suite, KYC rules, pricing, and renewal terms. Combined with the explicit read-only guarantee and the sequencing rule, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

There is only one optional boolean and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including its default. The description does add a little meaning by tying the Wyoming USD subsidiary to fiat/USD needs, but it doesn't name the parameter or explain the behavioral consequence of setting it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific resource (formation requirements) and explicitly scopes it to 'BOTH tiers' — the US$299 Wyoming LLC and the Nevis Agent Company — enumerating the contents of each. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming agent_company_diagnostic and 'creating a request', so an agent can tell it apart from create_formation_request or get_formation_status without opening a schema.

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 ordering rule: 'Call after agent_company_diagnostic, before creating a request.' That both names the prerequisite sibling and the downstream tool this output feeds, which is exactly the routing an agent needs. No ambiguity about when this is the right call.

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