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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says this is a legacy alias and to prefer request_service, but it doesn't disclose what the tool does, what side effects it has, whether it creates a record, sends an email, or returns anything. The behavioral traits are almost entirely undisclosed.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the most important fact: it's a legacy alias. Every word earns its place, though it could have added a brief statement of what the tool does without bloating the text.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It tells the agent to prefer request_service but doesn't explain what this tool does, what the parameters mean, or what happens when it's invoked. An agent would have to open request_service to understand this tool, which is a significant gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain any of the four parameters (business_id, seeker_name, seeker_email, message) or how they relate to a quote request. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 identifies this as a legacy alias for request_service, which implies it submits a quote request, but it never states the verb+resource directly. An agent can infer the purpose from the alias relationship and the sibling name, but the description itself is vague about what the tool actually does.

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 explicitly says to prefer request_service for new clients, which is clear usage guidance. It doesn't spell out when to use this tool instead, but for a legacy alias the guidance is sufficient: use it only for legacy compatibility.

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