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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description adds value by disclosing the rendering behavior: an interactive card in chat, with a text fallback on hosts that lack in-chat apps. That fallback and the tab/preselect mechanics are genuine behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then parameter mechanics; almost no waste. The final semicolon-chained clause is slightly list-like but still compact and scannable.

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?

With zero required parameters, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool presents, when to call it, the no-app fallback, and how each parameter steers the card. An agent could invoke it correctly from this text alone.

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 enums and per-parameter descriptions already present, so the baseline is 3. The closing sentence restates the schema's own meaning (view opens a tab, sector filters work, service preselects the brief) rather than adding new semantics such as enum-value tradeoffs or how sector interacts with view.

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 concrete verb and resource — an interactive card showing selected work, priced services, and a brief form — which is more specific than the title. It does not, however, distinguish this composite card from siblings like get_case_studies, get_services, or submit_brief, which cover overlapping content.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: someone wants to see the work, compare services, or start a project. It stops short of when-not conditions or naming the sibling tools an agent should pick instead for single-purpose lookups.

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