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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: estimates are 'conservative', uses product-label dilution, and includes fiber safety warnings, which informs the user about calculation assumptions and output nature.

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 clear sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output dimensions and key assumptions, though it could be more explicit about the returned structure and edge cases. Still, annotations and schema defaults fill many gaps.

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 27%, and the description partially compensates by referencing product-label dilution and fiber safety, which relate to labelDilutionOzPerGal and fiber. However, most parameters (stairs, petSpots, furniture, soilLevel, etc.) are not individually explained, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Provides a specific action (estimate) and resource (DIY carpet cleaning project), listing the output dimensions (labor, time, chemistry, etc.), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on carpet cleaning with safety warnings.

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 context is implied from the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over plan_upholstery_cleaning or plan_water_damage_cleanup, nor any exclusions.

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