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

With annotations already covering read-only, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context beyond them: the dataset is dated and verified against primary sources, and — critically — Corpus is itself one of the compared providers and is scored with the same rubric including its own gaps, with the response disclosing this. That conflict-of-interest disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral transparency annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and comparison axes, followed by dataset provenance and the conflict-of-interest caveat, then the cost note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies what an agent needs to trust and call it: provenance, disclosure of self-inclusion, and cost behavior. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents view, limit, and providers in detail, including enum meanings and default/max values. The description's list of comparison dimensions loosely maps to the view modes but adds no parameter syntax or format beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (compares) and resource (LLC formation providers) and enumerates the exact comparison axes: price, recurring costs, registered-agent renewals, and machine/agent capabilities. This differentiates it cleanly from siblings like formation.requirements or formation.lookup_naics, which serve different purposes.

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 gives a reason to prefer this tool ('Free; does not consume credits') and the schema's view enum implies the modes of use, but it never states explicitly when to use this versus formation.requirements or other siblings, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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