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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the scope of the returned data (three packages plus add-ons, renewals, tax advisory) but does not add deeper behavioral details like pagination or data freshness, which would be expected if absent. Given the strong annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence efficiently lists the content scope, and the second provides a direct usage directive. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what data is returned, and when to call it. There is no output schema, so the description's content summary suffices. Combined with thorough annotations, nothing critical 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?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description successfully compensates by explaining what the tool returns, giving the agent a clear mental model of the output. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4, and the description meets that expectation.

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 clearly states the tool returns the three US LLC formation packages and lists exactly what data is included: price, turnaround time, inclusions, add-on services, annual renewals, and tax advisory. This is specific and distinct from siblings like get_renewal_info or recommend_llc_package, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description explicitly instructs to call this tool before discussing prices, renewals, advisory, or inclusions, which is clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving room for an agent to infer the contrast with recommend_llc_package.

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