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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds rich detail about the output: the missed-call problem, human/AI/hybrid winner, matching plans with prices, and a vendor question. This goes beyond the annotations and sets expectations for what the recommendation contains.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose immediately. The industry list adds specificity without bloat, and the usage trigger is compact. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains return values well (problem, winner, plans/prices, question). It covers the key user intent and usage scenario. Minor gap: no mention of how budget affects output, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 already described. The description adds industry examples but does not mention the optional budget parameter or how it affects results. It provides marginal value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action (recommend) and the resource (answering service or AI receptionist) for a specific type of business. It lists concrete industry examples and differentiates from siblings by focusing on business type rather than comparison, pricing, or ROI.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when someone says what business they run and asks what to get,' providing a clear trigger. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of offering 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.