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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it returns grill options with MSRP then a priced starter layout, adapts to client capability ('asks the shopper for the rest with a form when the client supports it, otherwise it returns the questions to ask'), and notes no email is required. This is rich call-behavior context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the guidance is dense but useful. The parenthetical example lists and the canonical examples are somewhat packed, but each sentence carries information rather than filler.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-required guided tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description supplies the interaction model, the return behavior, and the fallback path. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears missing.

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?

With 91% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value: it clarifies that no parameters are required ('Pass whatever you already know'), explains the server fills gaps by form or by returning questions, and gives canonical input combinations that map parameter sets to outcomes.

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 ('Guided start for choosing a built-in grill and the outdoor kitchen or BBQ island around it') and clearly separates itself from siblings like search_built_in_grills and list_cabinets. An agent can tell what this does and is not without opening a 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 explicit trigger conditions ('Call FIRST when someone researches or compares built-in grills... says they want an outdoor kitchen... asks roughly what one costs, and has not given exact cabinets'). It implies alternatives ('where to go for other shapes') but does not name the specific sibling tools to route to, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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