company_formation

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

No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions returning a ZIP with forms, but does not address permissions, side effects, data persistence, rate limits, or error conditions. The generation nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

Single sentence conveys core purpose and output contents efficiently. However, listing six forms inline could be formatted as a bullet list for clarity, though it remains functional.

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 16 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain required vs optional inputs, validation rules, processing expectations, or error scenarios, making it insufficient for a complex tool.

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 low (31%), yet the description adds no additional meaning for any parameter. It fails to explain key parameters like directors, shareholders, or registeredOffice structure beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates all forms needed to incorporate a Gibraltar company, listing specific forms in the ZIP output. It unambiguously differentiates from sibling tools like annual_return or deadlines.

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?

Description implies usage for incorporation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or when not to use.

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