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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses important behavioral traits: results include listingStatus and a disclosure field, public_listing companies are independent and not EnergyAI-partners/vetted, and it warns against implying endorsement. It also notes the tool is free and requires no API key. This is substantial transparency beyond a simple search tool.

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 description is structured with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by usage, an IMPORTANT caveat, alternatives, and a free note. It earns most sentences, but there is slight redundancy: 'Free' appears at the beginning and '[always free — no API key required]' at the end. Otherwise, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (rating, review count, listingStatus, disclosure field) and their interpretation (public vs. vetted). It also covers the use cases and boundaries well. The tool is simple, and the description leaves no major gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about ZIP-or-state usage and lists contractor categories, but these are already covered in the schema descriptions and examples. No additional parameter-level meaning is provided beyond what the schema gives.

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 clearly states the tool lists publicly-rated local clean-energy contractors by US ZIP or state, with specific categories (solar, battery, EV charger, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('local installers'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming route_lead and get_quote_link as alternatives for screening/routing.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use when a homeowner asks WHO can do the work near them.' It also tells when NOT to use it, directing to route_lead or get_quote_link when EnergyAI screening/routing is desired. This provides clear context and exclusions beyond a generic tool purpose.

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