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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and uses it well. It discloses that the result is a band rather than a single number, and that omitting a real call volume yields an unquantified result rather than a fabricated one—critical honesty for an agent.

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?

Three short, focused sentences front-load the core purpose and follow with output behavior and edge-case handling. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter estimation tool, the description covers purpose, inputs, output form, and the no-volume edge case. Even without an output schema or annotations, an agent has enough to call it 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?

The schema already covers both parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what happens when calls_per_month is absent ('returns unquantified rather than inventing one'), which clarifies the optional parameter's practical semantics beyond the schema.

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 analytical resource: the monthly cost of unanswered calls for a home-service business, expressed in extra jobs and dollars. It also clarifies important output semantics (a band, not a point estimate), which makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_offer and list_trades.

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 implies the tool is used when a cost estimate for missed calls is needed, and it identifies the required inputs (trade and monthly call volume). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the siblings or any exclusions.

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