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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the exact shape of the output (price per visit, time, breakdown into labor/supplies/overhead/profit), that defaults are typical US numbers, and that supplying a state layers in a state minimum price. It stops short of stating units or rounding/precision details, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three sentences ordered by importance: what it computes, what it returns, when to use it, then defaults and the state option. Every sentence carries information, though the defaults sentence overlaps with values already stated per-parameter in the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely by listing the price per visit, duration, and the four cost-breakdown components. With 7 parameters fully documented in the schema and annotations covering safety, nothing material is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter already carries its own documentation and a baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the state parameter's effect ('add that state's minimum price from local cleaner wages') but otherwise restates defaults (15% profit, 22/hr wage) that are already in the schema, adding little interpretive 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('what a cleaning business should charge for a standard recurring house cleaning') and names the inputs and outputs precisely. The qualifier 'house cleaning' with 'recurring' implicitly separates it from bid_commercial_cleaning, and the enumerated return values (flat price per visit, time, cost breakdown) let an agent pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when a cleaner or cleaning business owner asks how much to charge to clean a house.' That is a clear context for invocation. It does not explicitly exclude commercial bidding or point to bid_commercial_cleaning / minimum_cleaning_price_by_state as alternatives, so the routing is implied through the word 'house' rather than stated.

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