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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, what the response contains (boolean coverage? pricing delta?), or any call constraints, leaving the agent to guess the behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. The dual-clause 'whether... and whether...' construction is slightly awkward to parse but still front-loads the essential purpose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least convey what the caller gets back (coverage decision and pricing-change signal) and how to act on it. It hints at both topics but never states the return shape, leaving a meaningful gap.

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% for the single 'city' parameter. The description partially compensates by clarifying the accepted input is a city or town, but it adds no format, casing, or locality guidance beyond the maxLength=60 constraint in the 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 states a specific check: coverage for a city/town plus whether pricing differs there. It is distinguishable from pricing/quote siblings, though it is phrased as a noun clause ('Whether...') rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool does.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus siblings like get_pricing or estimate_job, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The workflow context (e.g., verify coverage before quoting) must be inferred.

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