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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so no safety contradiction. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the result is the precise checklist, includes live pricing and optional EIN add-on pricing when available, and is flagged as free/does not consume credits, which helps the agent understand resource impact.

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?

Two well-structured sentences lead with the core purpose, then the usage directive. Every clause adds information, and there is no vague or repeated phrasing to cut.

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 low parameter complexity, existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, when to invoke it, and the follow-up action. An agent has enough to select and call it correctly without additional investigation.

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%: both required parameters (, state, entityType) are already described. The description reinforces that state is a US state and entityType is LLC or nonprofit, but adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: getting the exact intake checklist for forming an LLC or nonprofit in a state. It enumerates concrete contents (required fields, quirk questions, live pricing, optional EIN add-on) so an agent can distinguish this from sibing tools like law.search or formation.lookup_naics.

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?

"Call this FIRST when the user wants to form a company, then collect the answers from them in conversation yourself" gives explicit when-to-use and a clear next-step workflow. It does not name or exclude the sibling alternatives such as formation.handoff, 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.