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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the guarded workflow, immediate screening/routing of approved installers, retention of unmatched projects for follow-up, return of leadId, and that the service is free and does not require an API key. It leaves minor gaps around validation failures and post-submission behavior, but the key behavioral traits 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose appears first, the consent condition immediately follows, and the alternative and free/API-key note are appended without fluff. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description explains the core action, the consent prerequisite, the alternative, and the returned leadId. Minor gaps remain around error handling and follow-up behavior after submission, but schema provides parameter details, so the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 71% across 14 parameters, so the schema already documents most parameter semantics. The description adds emphasis on consentText + consentTimestamp as the essential gating consent fields, but does not deeply explain the other parameters; the schema covers those, and the description does not need to fully compensate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a consented homeowner project to EnergyAI’s guarded installer-matching workflow'. It clearly states the screening/routing behavior, the returned leadId, and explicitly names get_quote_link as the alternative, so it distinguishes itself from siblings.

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?

The description states the prerequisite condition ('REQUIRES the homeowner’s explicit consent') and explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'Prefer get_quote_link if you don’t already have that consent in hand'. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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