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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains that the tool does not sell renewals and that the user is referred to the team via WhatsApp, email, or the client portal. This tells the agent what to do with the returned information rather than just declaring it safe.

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 front-loaded with the core answer ('Returns what the annual LLC renewal costs and covers'), then adds the sales-channel caveat, then a useful trigger list. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes meaningful guidance for tool selection and invocation.

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 read-only informational tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return subject matter, the usage triggers, and the follow-up referral path. It does not specify an exact response format, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the low tool complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('estado' and 'multimember') adequately. The description adds some context by mapping the multimember case to Form 1065, but it does not substantially enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it 'Returns what the annual LLC renewal costs and covers', including concrete IRS forms. It also clearly distinguishes itself from sales-related sibling tools by explicitly saying renewals are not sold through this server, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger list: 'Use it when the user asks about renewing, keeping the LLC active, IRS filings, penalties, the annual report, the state fee, or what happens after the first year.' It also clarifies the referral workflow when a user wants to actually purchase a renewal. It does not name specific alternative sibling tools, but the trigger list is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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