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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the trailing 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The added value is modest — the word 'short' signals the response is a compact checklist rather than a long article — but nothing about the checklist's shape or trade coverage is elaborated beyond that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the trigger conditions. The closing 'Read-only' is the one element that spends words on information the annotations already carry, so it falls just short of waste-free.

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 single-parameter, fully enumerated read tool with complete schema descriptions, full annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what comes back and when to reach for it. No material gap remains for a tool of this complexity.

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 trade enum's own description already supplies examples and the 'use Handyman for a general repair' fallback. The description only restates that the trade is an input ('in a given trade'), adding no syntax or selection guidance of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete verb and artifact — it returns a short checklist of details and photos a homeowner should supply so a pro can quote a job, scoped to a given trade. The purpose is unmistakable and clearly distinct in substance from find_local_pros or compare_a_quote, though those siblings are never named.

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?

It states the triggering intents precisely: when someone asks what to tell a contractor, what a quote needs, or how to describe a repair. That is clear usage context, but it offers no explicit exclusions or pointer to the sibling tools for the adjacent jobs of finding a pro or comparing a quote.

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