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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the rules are cited with an as-of date, the answer includes the underlying experiment/survey findings, and it carries an explicit 'informational, not legal advice' disclaimer.

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?

One dense but well-organized sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the substantive contents enumerated afterward. It is longer than average, but each clause (window, judgment moment, cited legal sources, evidence base) carries distinct information; only the stacked citations make it slightly run-on.

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 read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the content contract well — what categories of answer to expect, the citation convention, and the scope limitation. It could still say more about answer shape or size, and it omits usage routing, keeping it just short of complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: job_type may be omitted (obtainable to get every job type for the trade) and completed_on changes the output shape from a relative window to concrete dates — details that go beyond the schema's field-level wording.

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 (plan review-request timing) scoped by trade and job type, and enumerates exactly what the answer contains: what to say at completion, the written-request window, the moment of first judgment, and applicable rules. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (list_trades, seasonal_demand, service_area, trade_service_pages).

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?

Its implicit usage is inferable from the framing, and it explains a conditional behavior (dates returned when completed_on is given), but it never says when to reach for this tool versus list_trades or the other siblings, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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