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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the fallback behavior for unrecognized trades and by scoping out pricing/budget content, which tells the agent what the response will and will not contain.

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, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the fallback and exclusion following as qualifiers. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and one optional parameter, the definition covers purpose, fallback, and content exclusions adequately. The only mild gap is that 'current intake template' is not explained (versioning or which template is active), which an agent might need in ambiguous cases.

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% and the single optional 'trade' parameter already documents the lowercase-key format and the omit-for-generic default, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond that by clarifying that an unrecognized trade value yields the generic template rather than an error.

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 ('Get') and a concrete resource ('must-have questions and photo asks from the current intake template'), scoped 'for any trade'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bid_checklist or permit_facts, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: use it to pull intake-template prep questions for a trade, omit the trade for the generic set, and note that unknown trades fall back rather than erroring. It adds one exclusion ('No prices or budget questions'), but offers no explicit comparison to alternatives such as bid_checklist.

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