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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses authentication behavior (401 for anonymous callers), OAuth flows, and even mentions the alternative for keyless access. It does not mention rate limits, response format specifics, or scenarios like no contractor match, but it covers the essential behavioral aspects for an instant quote tool.

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 informative but repeats OAuth instructions almost verbatim twice (with slightly different URLs), making it longer than necessary. The purpose is front-loaded, but the auth sections could be consolidated. While each sentence adds some value, redundancy detracts from conciseness.

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 complexity (5 params, nested location object, no output schema), the description lists the returned fields and covers auth, but it lacks examples or details on response structure beyond field names. It also doesn't discuss failure modes beyond the 401 or any async behavior. It's adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke without ambiguity.

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 only 20%, and the description does little to compensate. It mentions trade, location, and urgency by name but provides no additional meaning for nte_cents or description, and does not explain how urgency affects the quote or how location is used beyond being required. The description adds minimal value over the sparse schema.

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 clearly states 'Return an instant dispatch quote for a field-service job' and lists the key inputs (trade, location, urgency) and outputs (matched contractor, cost in cents, ETA tier, valid_for_minutes). It also explicitly distinguishes from dispatch.estimate by noting 'Keyless rate-card pricing is dispatch.estimate', making its purpose and scope unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 states the authentication requirement ('Requires a client integration key') and provides a clear alternative for unauthenticated use: 'Keyless rate-card pricing is dispatch.estimate.' This satisfies the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion. It also details the OAuth registration and token flow, giving concrete steps for obtaining credentials.

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