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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint, and the description is consistent with them. It adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the result comes from a fixed table, is not a binding quote, includes a disclaimer plus contact instructions, and yields no number for out-of-table jobs.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence with no filler. The sentence is dense with parenthetical caveats, but every clause conveys useful information rather than padding.

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, and the description compensates by explaining what the return contains (a range, a disclaimer, contact instructions, or no number). For a two-parameter read-only lookup tool, this is nearly complete, with only the exact response shape left unspecified.

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 both parameters are already documented with an example for 'problem'. The description adds only indirect guidance about parameter values via the 'jobs outside the table' edge case, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource (typical price range) with a specific scope (common plumbing problem in Delaware County, PA) and the data source (a fixed table). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like check_coverage or chat_with_delco_plumber_now, which serve different purposes.

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 clarifies the key usage boundary — this is not a quote and the plumber confirms the price — and states that no number is returned for jobs outside the table. However, it doesn't explicitly route the agent to an alternative sibling when the job is outside the table or when a firm quote is needed.

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