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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the result set is limited to https://eoslog.com titles/URLs, every tool returned is free, and no account is required — useful for deciding whether a returned tool is actionable.

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 verb and resource lead the first sentence, and the second sentence front-loads the return format and the free/no-account constraint. The single long enumeration sentence is dense but each clause maps to a distinct capability, so little is wasted; it could have been split for readability.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: titles plus https://eoslog.com URLs. Combined with the task enumeration, optional trade filtering, and the free/no-account guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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% with both parameters enum-constrained and described, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by expanding the enum values into concrete semantics, e.g. that price calculators cover house, move-out, deep, commercial or Airbnb cleaning, pressure washing or landscaping, and that they come with URL params that prefill them — detail the schema's enum labels alone do not convey.

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 verb (finds) and resource (free EosLog tool) and enumerates the exact categories of artifacts it can return: quote/invoice generators, cleaning/pressure-washing/landscaping price calculators, and contract/form templates. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling tools, which are single-purpose calculators like estimate_house_cleaning_price or cleaning_sales_tax_by_state.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the entry point for locating a free tool matching a user's task, and the phrase 'filtered by trade when given' tells it the trade parameter is optional. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., whether to call this before or instead of a specific sibling calculator).

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