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

Annotations only flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the credit model, the charge-if-found-only rule, the quote ceiling, the zero cost on miss, and the 10-minute one-shot expiry. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before spending the user's credits.

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?

Opens with the highest-salience fact ('Spends credits'), then layers cost rules, consent gate and expiry. Five short sentences, none redundant, all front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the payload. For a single-parameter credit-spending tool, every decision-relevant fact (cost, precondition, expiry, failure cost) is covered.

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% and quote_id is self-documented there, so baseline is 3. The description adds lifecycle meaning the schema lacks — the quote runs once and expires after 10 minutes — which materially affects how the parameter should be used, lifting it to 4.

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?

Names a specific action (runs a quote) and the concrete payload it returns: officers/managers, registered agent, formation details. It is clearly distinguishable from its near-twin sibling quote_llc_owner_lookup, which only produces the quote this tool consumes.

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?

Explicitly states the ordering prerequisite (a quote from quote_llc_owner_lookup) and the consent precondition (call only after the user agreed to the quoted cost). No alternative tool performs this lookup, so no when-not-to-use clause is needed.

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