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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses important behavior: the call does not store a request, does not confirm a booking, and is rate-limited. It also names the widget URI, adding useful operational context.

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 compact and front-loads the usage condition, followed by behavior, parameter mapping, widget URI, and constraints. Each sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary 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?

Given the annotations, complete input schema, and output schema, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation. It covers the key non-obvious behavior: no persistence, no booking confirmation, and rate limiting.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds source terminology for business_id and repeats the shop_id fallback rule, but it does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 action and resource: opening a quote form/widget for one enrolled home-service business. It explicitly distinguishes this from booking a confirmed appointment time, so an agent can separate it from request_booking.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: use when the user wants to open a quote form rather than book a confirmed appointment. It also explains business_id versus shop_id fallback behavior, which helps invocation.

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