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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds substantial behavior: a reference number is issued, Firstmise reviews equipment and open questions, and it replies by email with a schedule and a nonbinding estimate through one contact. It also discloses retention (kept apart, 24 months, deletable on request), which annotations cannot convey. It does not say what happens if the same requirement is submitted twice, leaving the non-idempotent hint unexplained.

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 opening is front-loaded, but the second and third sentences are near-duplicates ("It is kept with a reference number. Your request is recorded with a reference number."), and the retention clause is jammed into a run-on that competes with operational guidance. Length is spent on restatement and privacy prose rather than on the ten undocumented fields.

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 10-field, nested, no-output-schema intake tool, the description adequately explains the workflow outcome (reference number, email reply, nonbinding estimate) so an agent knows what happens after calling. But with zero schema coverage and no field descriptions, an agent still cannot tell what to put in continuation, requested_fields, or the structured budget/timing/quantity objects.

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 0% across 10 parameters, several nested, so the description must carry the meaning. It only obliquely gestures at inputs ("an address", "reported equipment", "existing arrangements", "proposed schedule") and never explains action enums, budget, quantity, geography, requested_fields, or the id/token pair needed for continuation.

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?

"Send a requirement to Firstmise" gives a specific verb and resource, and the follow-on sentences clarify that this is a review-and-quote intake rather than a purchase. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings such as request_status or inspect_offer, so it stops short of a 5.

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 lines "This request books no visits. Nothing is ordered or committed until you agree terms" imply the tool is for pre-commitment intake, which is genuine usage context. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus request_status (for following up) or accept_offer (for committing).

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