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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: ambiguous or absent matches return no price and never an estimate, which tells the agent not to treat output as a quote and prevents downstream fabrication.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core matching behavior front-loaded and the edge-case behavior second. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 one-parameter lookup with full annotation coverage this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description never characterizes the successful response (price fields, currency, units, granularity), leaving the return shape undefined beyond the failure case.

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 single 'service' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema says only 'string'. The description partially compensates by clarifying the parameter is a service or repair name, but it gives no format, matching rules, or examples for ambiguous input.

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 (match) and resource (service/repair name to published flat-rate pricing), which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_services, get_current_offers, or get_company_info. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to get a price for a named service or repair. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of siblings such as get_current_offers (discounts) or get_services (catalog), so the agent must infer routing.

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