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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: this read-only call is a gate that emits an estimate_token that a later write requires. It omits whether that token expires or how long it stays valid, which matters for a token-consuming dependency.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the purpose comes first, then the hard ordering constraint front-loads the information an agent must act on. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering and the token dependency. The only loose end is token lifetime/reuse, which the output schema may or may not resolve, so this is strong but not airtight.

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%, and the schema already documents the jurisdiction code format and the obtain_ein cost/day impact. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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?

"Estimate the all-in cost for a jurisdiction" gives a specific verb (estimate) and resource (all-in cost), and the second sentence distinguishes it from every sibling by naming the formation flow it feeds. An agent can tell this apart from get_jurisdiction_requirements or list_jurisdictions without opening any 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?

The prerequisite is stated explicitly as a hard ordering rule (MUST be called before create_formation), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs to sequence a multi-step flow. It does not name when-not to call it or mention get_jurisdiction_requirements as a complement, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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