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

The description is highly transparent about behavior: it states the tool 'sends nothing and files nothing' and that the user must open the link and agree to be contacted, including a legal consent note. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 well-structured with three sentences: purpose, scope clarification, and legal note. It contains minor redundancy (repeats 'free' and 'nothing') but every sentence adds value and there is no fluff. The structure is logical and easy to follow.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it does not do, and the user consent requirement. The mention of 'what happens next' is somewhat vague, but the tool's output (a link) is self-explanatory. An output schema is noted as present, so no further details are needed.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (city, state, optional pest), so the tool description does not need to add much. The description adds context (e.g., 'free request', 'US city') but does not elaborate further on parameter usage. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: to generate a link for a free pest control request in a US city. It uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as a link, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_licensed_pros or verify_license. The phrase 'This tool only builds and returns the link' further clarifies its narrow scope.

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 effectively communicates when to use this tool by stating it returns a link for a request and explicitly noting it does not send or file anything. While it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, the clarification 'This tool only builds and returns the link' implicitly guides the agent away from using it for other actions, making the usage context clear.

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