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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantive context they do not: it never spends credits, the cost is charged only if the company is found, and some states list the company without its officers. Those are exactly the caveats an agent needs to relay before committing the user to a paid action.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the free/credit model, then the two-step workflow, then the parameter guidance. Every sentence carries information, but the single dense paragraph runs long enough that the user-consent step could be visually separated for easier scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description instead supplies the workflow, cost semantics, and data-availability caveats. For a two-parameter quoting tool that gates a paid sibling call, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by stressing that the exact registered name must be passed and clarifying the state is the one where the company is registered (the schema hedges with 'often the state of the property'). It adds real precision beyond the field descriptions, though it introduces no new fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find who is behind an LLC or company') and enumerates exactly what it returns: officers/managers, registered agent, and formation details from public business records. It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling run_llc_owner_lookup, which it explicitly positions as the follow-up step.

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 explicit when-to-use (finding LLC ownership, e.g. the LLC behind a property) and a hard precondition: only call run_llc_owner_lookup with the quote_id after the user agrees to the stated cost. The quote-then-run pattern and the requirement to relay the cost to the user are spelled out rather than implied.

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