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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the dataset is dated and covers 19 providers verified against primary sources, Corpus is included and scored with the same rubric including its own gaps, and the tool is free. This gives the agent important expectations about fairness and data provenance.

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 dense but efficient. Every sentence earns its place: what it compares, data provenance, when to call it, the Corpus bias disclosure, and cost. The main action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 comparison tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its data source, its limitations, and its cost. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly without additional guesswork.

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 all three parameters well. The description does not add new parameter-level detail, but it does provide useful surrounding context such as the provider count and Corpus's inclusion. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: comparing LLC formation providers on price, recurring costs, registered-agent renewals, and machine/agent capabilities. It is clearly distinct from siblings like formation.requirements, formation.lookup_naics, and formation.handoff, which serve different functions.

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 explicit trigger scenarios: choosing a formation service, evaluating whether a price is a good deal, comparing Corpus to a competitor, or assessing a 'best LLC services' list. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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