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

Beyond annotations, it discloses critical side effects: each call saves a new draft and counts toward the monthly allowance; description and photo links are sent to the AI provider; nothing is sent to the customer or Jobber; unmatched lines are flagged and never guessed. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 definition is front-loaded with usage guidance, followed by essential side effects and data-sharing details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 write tool with no output schema, it covers side effects, data handling, and exclusions thoroughly. It does not explicitly describe the return value or what the draft object looks like, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds context about price-book matching and flagging, but does not provide parameter-specific syntax or examples beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Draft a quote' and 'builds the draft only from the contractor's own price book.' It clearly scopes the tool to jobs the contractor describes, distinguishing it from general pricing tools.

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 says when to use ('Use this when a contractor describes a job ... wants an itemized quote') and when not to use ('Do not use for general pricing questions or for jobs the user has not described'). However, it does not name specific alternative sibling tools like search_price_book for pricing questions.

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