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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'Never returns personal data' and explains the email's role as a second factor. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, input requirements, agent instruction, and output constraint. Front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

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 description covers what the tool does, required inputs, and a behavioral constraint (no personal data). However, with no output schema, it does not describe the format of the returned status (e.g., possible values, structure). For a simple status check this is adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra meaning: the reference number format (SC-MMDD-XXXX) and clarifies that the email is an authentication factor, not a search key. This enriches the schema's baseline.

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 'looks up a previously submitted LLC formation request and returns its status'. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_llc_lead (for creation) and get_llc_options (for options). No ambiguity.

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 tells the agent to ask the user for both the reference number and email before calling, and explains that the email is a second factor, not a search key. It implies usage after a request is submitted. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear and actionable.

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