Look up nonprofit IRS / California good standing by EIN

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: the data sources checked, the types of returned information, and the meaning of 'clear'. It does not mention any limitations, caching, or error conditions, but for a lookup tool this is quite transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences, the first stating the main action and data sources, the second defining the key result. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it identifies the exact lists, the return values, and the meaning of a clear result. It gives the user sufficient understanding without needing to guess return structure or side effects.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter 'ein' with a description and example. The tool description mentions 'by EIN' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Thus the baseline score of 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate for 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 clearly states the tool checks a US nonprofit's standing by EIN against specific IRS and California lists, enumerating exactly what is checked (auto-revocation, delinquency/suspension) and what is returned (dates, reinstatement window, AB 488 effect). This distinguishes it from the sibling lookup_ada_report and uses a specific verb ('Check') with a well-defined resource.

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 provides clear context about the tool's scope (IRS and California lists) and what constitutes a 'clear' result, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since the sibling tool is not referenced, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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