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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. What the description does add is substantive: it discloses the methodology and, by calling the result 'the least ... without losing money,' signals that the output is a cost floor rather than a market quote — context an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 output itself is front-loaded in the first clause, with the methodology as supporting detail and the parameter default last. It is a single dense sentence, but every clause (units, standard clean size, cost components, national fallback) carries information.

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-optional-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the two returned figures mean and where the input data comes from. Remaining gaps — currency, whether figures are ranges, and how often wage data refreshes — are minor for this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the state parameter as a name or two-letter code with the national default. The description's closing sentence restates that default rather than adding format, casing, or edge-case guidance, so the schema is doing the real work.

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 names the exact deliverables — the floor price per cleaner-hour and for a standard 3-bedroom/2-bathroom clean — and the basis for computing them (BLS median cleaner wage plus payroll, supplies, overhead and profit). That is specific enough to separate it from price_house_cleaning or cleaning_business_profit, which are about quoting or profit rather than a state-level minimum viable price.

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 only usage instruction is 'Leave the state out for the national figures,' which is genuinely useful routing for the optional parameter. It never says when to reach for this tool rather than price_house_cleaning or cleaning_business_profit, so the choice among siblings is left to inference from the names.

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