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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that projects are screened and routed, that unmatched projects are stored for follow-up, and that a leadId is returned. It is slightly vague about what 'guarded' actually entails and does not describe error or failure behavior, but the main side effects are covered.

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?

Four sentences, starting with the core action, then outcomes, consent requirement, return value, alternative route, and cost note. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from 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?

For a 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contract, post-submission behavior, and an escape hatch to get_quove_link. It omits error handling and lifecycle details of the leadId, but those are minor against the clear invocation guidance already present.

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?

It adds meaning beyond the schema by pairing consentText + consentTimestamp as the explicit consent requirement and explaining that a leadId is returned. Given 71% schema coverage, the description does not need to restate each parameter and instead highlights the critical ones for successful invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a consented homeowner project to EnergyAI’s guarded installer-matching workflow.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings by describing the consent requirement, screening/routing behavior, and unmatched-project follow-up, so an agent can recognize what it does 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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite of homeowner consent and gives a direct when-not-to-use rule: 'Prefer get_quove_link if you don’t already have that consent in hand.' This makes the first routing decision unambiguous for an agent.

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