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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses pricing and what the fee covers, the two payment paths (Stripe checkout_url for the human vs. exact USDC/USDT for autonomous agent payment), that filing starts automatically on payment detection, and automatic reminders at 60/30/7 days. It also warns of the real-world consequence of missing the report (administrative dissolution freezing bank/processor accounts).

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 action and product, then the risk framing, then the mechanics. Dense but each clause adds decision-relevant information (product id, price, due-date rule, payment options). Slightly long single block with minor redundancy around the request_id warning.

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?

For a single-parameter order tool with no output schema, the definition covers cost, timing, required input, the shape of the return (an order with two payment options), and downstream automation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating 'The ORIGINAL formation request_id ... not a new one.' The description repeats that warning rather than adding new semantics such as format, lookup behavior, or what happens if an invalid or superseded id is passed. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Order') and a specific resource ('WYOMING ANNUAL REPORT filing service') with its scope ('for a company we formed'), plus the concrete product id 'wy_annual_report'. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_formation_request or get_compliance_calendar.

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 clear triggering context — you use it for an already-formed company and must pass the ORIGINAL formation request_id rather than a new one. It also explains the annual due-date trigger. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (e.g. 'to form a new company use create_formation_request'), so a 4 rather than 5.

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