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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that new listings start unverified, that request routing can go to an external endpoint while a copy stays in the hosted inbox, that listing_id/listing_key must be persisted for check_inbox and update_request_status, and the no-prices policy. It omits auth requirements, idempotency/duplicate behavior, and any mutation-confirmation semantics.

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 purpose, then the input expectations, then routing behavior, then return values and the price constraint — a logical order with no filler sentences. It runs long, but nearly every clause carries operational information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned listing_id and listing_key and what they are for. For an unannotated mutation tool it covers the essentials; only auth/permission posture and duplicate-registration behavior are left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema for endpoint_url (routing behavior and hosted-inbox fallback) and frames the required set (name, trade, services, service area, hours, rules) in operational terms. It also imposes a constraint on field content (no prices) that the schema does not encode.

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 ("Register a local home-services business in the network") plus the downstream purpose (homeowner agents find it and send job requests). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_pros, get_listing, and check_inbox 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?

Explains the key usage decision — pass endpoint_url only if the business has its own agent endpoint, otherwise the network hosts the inbox — and warns never to include prices. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions or duplicate-handling guidance (e.g. what to do if the business is already registered).

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