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

The description explains the tool provides informational content and returns a link, which aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by describing what the tool outputs (explanation and link) and the scope of eligibility. No contradictions exist; the description reinforces the safe, read-only nature.

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 relatively concise at 4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It could be slightly tighter by merging the ITIN explanation with the usage guidance, but overall every sentence contributes meaning and there is no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The sibling tools list and annotations provide additional context, making this description sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke 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 the sole parameter 'socios' with high coverage. The description adds value by clarifying the parameter's purpose: 'Used to quote the total,' which is not explicitly stated in the schema description. This helps the agent understand how the parameter affects output without duplicating schema details.

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 explains what an ITIN is, covers cost and document needs, and returns an application form link. It also distinguishes itself by noting it serves users whether or not the LLC was formed by Start Companies, setting it apart from sibling tools like create_llc_lead or recommend_llc_package.

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 when to use the tool: 'whenever the user asks about ITIN, tax ID, taxpayer number or filing as a member of a multimember LLC.' This gives clear trigger phrases and constraints, leaving no ambiguity about when the tool is appropriate versus when a sibling might be needed.

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