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

Annotations already declare the write-safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that responses are asynchronous and split between instant estimates with bookable slots and delayed replies governed by a stated response time. That is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the next-step hint trailing naturally. No filler, though the parenthetical poll instruction is slightly compressed and could name the tool context more explicitly.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the possible response shapes (estimate + slots vs. delayed reply), which is the right thing to cover. But for a 7-parameter mutation with a nested customer object and 57% schema coverage, too many inputs and behaviors (auth needs, idempotency implications) remain unexplained.

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 57%, and the description only touches the 'description' parameter obliquely via 'plain English'. It says nothing about slug, urgency, photos, preferred_times, service_sku, or the nested customer/address object, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Ask a service business... for a price') with a concrete domain example. It is clearly distinguishable from retrieval siblings like get_business or search_businesses, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely-named place_service_request or place_order.

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?

Implies usage ('Describe the problem in plain English') and routes the agent to a follow-up action ('poll get_request_status'), which is useful. However, it never states when to prefer this over the near-identical siblings place_service_request or place_order, leaving the core selection choice to inference.

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