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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the email is a second factor, not a search key, and the call returns status only, not personal data.

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 three sentences with no filler, and the most important operational guidance (requires both fields, ask the user) is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes actionable 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?

For a simple, two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough information to call correctly: what to collect, what it returns, and what it does not return. It could be slightly stronger by describing possible status values or not-found behavior, but this is not essential for invoking the tool.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying the reference number format (SC-MMDD-XXXX) and explicitly framing the email as a matching factor rather than a lookup key, which helps the agent collect and use the arguments correctly.

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 ('Looks up'), a specific resource ('a previously submitted LLC formation request'), and the result ('returns its status'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_llc_lead or get_renewal_info by anchoring on an existing request's status lookup.

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 caller to ask the user for both the reference number and email before calling, and explains that both are required. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls just short of a 5.

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