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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: read-only, no API key, free and no credit consumption, plus operational semantics such as the phase list and the special meaning of filingSubmitted. This is exactly the type of behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 purpose is front-loaded and most content earns its place, especially the phase list and filingSubmitted caveat. The first sentence is dense and run-on, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is complete enough: it covers inputs, auth/cost behavior, phase meaning, and key return-value semantics. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds minor context about where trackingToken comes from, but overall the schema does most of the work, so 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: reporting the status of an LLC or nonprofit formation order, including the phases it can be in. It is clear and detailed, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from related siblings such as formation.payment_status or formation.handoff.

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?

It clearly explains when the tool applies: checking an order using the orderId and trackingToken returned at checkout or carried in the founder's tracking link. It does not provide explicit exclusions or direct the agent to alternatives in ambiguous cases.

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