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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the lead desk may phone within minutes in the US/UK, each call creates one request, a repeat with the same phone or email within a day is recognised and not duplicated, and a request reference is returned. The dedupe window sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but it is a stated business rule rather than a contradictory claim about the operation type, and the rest is high-value disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its actor, followed by the mechanics and preconditions in a logical order; no sentence is filler. It runs slightly long and could compress the Haulest-role sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 15-parameter form submission with no output schema, the description covers purpose, consent gating, dedupe, and the shape of the response ('a request reference and what happens next'). What remains unsaid — optional-field handling and full return content — is either in the schema or minor for a submission tool.

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 100% and all 15 parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the consent and contact-detail requirements already spelled out in the schema, adding no format, boundary, or trade-off information beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — submits a quote request to Haulest so licensed movers contact the person — and clarifies the company's role ('Haulest is not a carrier; it introduces the request to movers'). An agent can distinguish this from find_movers or check_mover_licence without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('Call this only after the person has given their name, phone, and email... and has explicitly agreed to be contacted; confirm the details back to them first'), which is unusually explicit usage context. It does not, however, name sibling alternatives (e.g. estimate_moving_cost for a price-only enquiry), so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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