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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: it actively screens out cases with mandatory professional-only stop conditions and only returns guidance for eligible limited incidents. However, it does not describe the specific stop conditions or the structure of the returned guidance, so behavioral detail is modest.

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 two sentences, with the core screening purpose front-loaded. Every clause adds value—first the screening action, then the conditional guidance output. No fluff 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?

Given 20 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level contract: triage and DIY guidance for eligible cases. It lists the output categories and clarifies the eligibility limitation, but it omits decision thresholds, return format, and any explanation of what happens when a stop condition is met.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 20 input parameters. It mentions output categories like water-volume, labor, equipment, chemistry, and procedural guidance, but gives no guidance on how to set source, ageHours, areaSqFt, materials, or any other parameter. This leaves the agent without parameter-level meaning.

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 the tool's specific function: screening a water incident for mandatory professional-only stop conditions and providing DIY guidance for eligible limited cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on water damage cleanup rather than carpet or upholstery cleaning.

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 implies when to use the tool—for water incidents that need triage to decide between professional-only and DIY cleanup. It clearly scopes to 'limited DIY' cases but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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