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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by explaining that the tool sends nothing, files nothing, and that the homeowner must personally consent. This adds meaningful behavioral detail, especially around the legal requirement for consent.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds meaningful behavioral or legal context. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but the extra detail is valuable and not redundant.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema fully documents parameters, output schema exists, and annotations cover safety traits. The description adds the missing information about what the tool does not do and who must take the next step, making it complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to re-explain parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 clearly states a specific verb-resource pair: getting a link that starts a free introduction request for pest control help. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it only builds and returns a link and does not send or file anything.

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?

The description provides clear context about when this tool is appropriate: when the user needs a request link rather than a pro listing, cost estimate, or verification. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough.

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