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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the exact calculation components (wage, burden, markup, urgency multiplier, trip fee, minimum-billable-hours floor), the returned fields (wage_basis, billed_estimate), location-sensitive behavior, and the caveat that model assumptions are 'not observed STEADYWRK prices.'

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 dense but well-organized: primary purpose and formula up front, then return shape, location handling, trust caveat, and the sibling alternative. Every sentence adds necessary information, and none repeats the schema or annotation fields.

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 and no output schema, the description covers all essential invocation information: what it computes, what it returns, how location affects results, when the estimate is location-insensitive, what assumptions are labeled, the authentication requirement, and which sibling to use instead. Nothing critical for an agent to select and call it correctly is missing.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It substantially explains location behavior and implies how urgency participates through the 'urgency multiplier.' It introduces the wage basis concept absent from the schema, but leaves the exact trade-to-wage mapping and urgency-value-to-multiplier mapping implicit, which is a minor but real gap.

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 opening sentence, 'Keyless billed-cost estimate for a field-service job,' names a specific verb ('estimate'), a concrete resource, and the pricing domain. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling dispatch.quote by stating this is 'not a contractor-matched quote,' so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Not a contractor-matched quote: use dispatch.quote with an API key for that. No API key required.' It also gives operational context, such as which locations are recognized, which are beta coverage-only, and how unrecognized locations are handled.

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