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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact: this dispatches a request to humans ('the crew') rather than computing a result, and it is consent-gated. It stops short of describing what happens after submission, whether repeat calls are deduplicated, or how the request is stored.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the constraint second. No filler, no restated title.

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 side-effecting, six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition well but leaves the post-submission behavior, the meaning of the quote fields, and the lack of a documented return unaddressed.

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 0% across six parameters, and the description only gives semantics for phone/email by tying them to user consent. zip, rooms, and zones are undocumented in both schema and description, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 — sending a mini split quote request to the crew — which is distinguishable from the informational siblings (get_pricing, estimate_job, check_coverage). It does not name a sibling directly, but the dispatch-oriented framing is clear enough to separate it.

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?

Provides an explicit gating condition: only when the user explicitly asks to be contacted and supplies their own phone or email. This is a real when-to-use rule with an implicit exclusion (do not fire it unprompted), though it never names an alternative tool.

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