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

Annotations declare it is not read-only and is open-world, but the description supplies the non-obvious mechanics the annotations cannot: contractors are emailed and followed up, results arrive as a ranked comparison in ~48 hours, the cost is $39 USDC via x402, and critically the tool itself only validates the job and returns the paid HTTP request for the wallet to send. That last point fundamentally changes how an agent must sequence the call.

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 use condition, then service behavior, price, and the mechanical payment note in a tight sequence. It runs six sentences, slightly long, but each carries distinct operational value with no filler.

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 12-parameter, 7-required, open-world paid tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, turnaround, delivery channel, and the payment handoff, which are the highest-risk unknowns. It stops short of describing failure/refund behavior or what happens if the job fails validation.

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 75%, so most fields are already documented, and the description's main conditional hint (incumbent_annual_usd for contract_rebid) is already stated in the schema field description. It adds no format or validation guidance for trade/job_type beyond pointing at list_job_types, which the schema also does.

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 ('quotes or bids from local contractors'), scopes it to 'a real job at a US property' or an annual contract re-bid, and explicitly distinguishes itself from use as a price lookup by naming check_fair_price. An agent can pick between this and its siblings without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit use trigger ('when the user wants quotes or bids'), a second legitimate case (contract_rebid), a stated exclusion ('Not for price lookups: use check_fair_price'), and a prerequisite for the re-bid path (incumbent_annual_usd). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that earns a top score.

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