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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys the data content but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only listing operation, how results are ordered, or what exact structure is returned. The read-only nature is strongly implied by the name, making this minimally adequate.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler words. It could be more action-oriented by starting with 'Lists...', but it remains appropriately sized and readable.

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 parameterless reference-listing tool, the description names every relevant output attribute: typical job value, repair/project classification, and unanswered-call frequency. It does not describe return formatting, but with no output schema and such a simple operation, it is reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter burden exists.

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 clearly identifies the resource: the home-service trades FindingLeads serves, and enumerates the attributes included for each trade. It stops short of an explicit verb-phrase like 'Lists all trades' and does not name sibling tools, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus estimate_missed_call_cost or get_offer. The usage is only implied by the word 'list' in the tool name and the reference-style content, with no explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

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