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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false and openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds useful context beyond that: 'No sensitive data' signals it is safe to call without handling PII, and 'Call this first' conveys ordering. It says nothing about result size, pagination, or whether the pricing is indicative, which would be genuinely additive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a safety note and a sequencing instruction. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema to explain return values, and full schema coverage for its single param, so most burden is lifted elsewhere. The description covers purpose, safety and ordering; the only gap is clarifying how the listing differs from the per-jurisdiction requirements tool in the same family.

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?

With one optional parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents include_coming_soon and its default. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate even though the default listing behavior is implied.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all available company-formation jurisdictions') and adds what the result carries ('pricing and timelines'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It stops short of distinguishing itself from offshoreproz_get_jurisdiction_requirements, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.

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?

'Call this first' gives explicit workflow sequencing, implying it precedes create_formation and estimate_cost. It offers no explicit when-not or named-alternative guidance, so the boundary with the sibling requirements tool is left implicit.

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