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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on whether requirements vary by entity type, how current the data is, or whether the returned field set is exhaustive. It is a restatement of purpose rather than added behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves no room for the routing or scope context an agent would benefit from.

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 values need not be explained, and rich annotations cover safety; that lowers the burden considerably. However, for a tool whose output drives downstream formation decisions, the description says nothing about the nature or variability of the returned requirements, leaving it minimally adequate rather than 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%, and the schema parameter documents both format and example values ('WY for Wyoming, MI for Marshall Islands') plus the discovery path. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for jurisdiction_code, so the baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the required fields to form a company in a given jurisdiction'), which is clear enough to distinguish this lookup from formation-mutating siblings like create_formation or cancel_formation. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-formation planning lookup. The only explicit routing hint ('Use offshoreproz_list_jurisdictions to discover available codes') lives in the input schema, not in the description. No when-not conditions or alternative tools are stated in the description itself.

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