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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a real-world side effect: 'This sends a REAL message to a real small business.' It also warns against inventing contact details and imposes a rate limit ('One request per person per day'), which is useful behavioral context for a non-idempotent action.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by guardrails and an urgent-case fallback. Every sentence carries essential information and there is no filler or 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?

For a tool that sends real-world messages, the description covers prerequisites, content restrictions, rate limiting, and an alternative for urgent situations. Although there is no output schema, the operational guidance is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain each field. It reinforces the need for genuine contact details and consent, but it adds little field-level meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description opens with a specific action and result: 'Send a homeowner's request to 905 Trades so one contractor for that trade and town calls them back.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the read-only sibling tools like search and get_business_facts.

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 explicit trigger conditions: 'call it only when the person has clearly asked to be contacted by 905 Trades and has given you their own name and their own phone number or email.' It also names a concrete alternative for urgent cases: 'give them the phone number instead.'

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