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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: submission is a double opt-in flow ('Nothing reaches Roome until the person confirms the request from an email Roome sends them'), so a submit is not yet a delivered lead, and the recipient is a third party. Annotations only say it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write; the description explains the actual lifecycle, which is the key thing an agent needs before telling a user their request was 'sent'.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then the geographic restriction, the confirmation behavior, and cost. Every sentence carries a distinct fact the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 7-parameter write tool with full schema coverage, an explicit annotation set, and no output schema, the description supplies what structured data cannot: eligibility, cost, recipient, and the post-call confirmation step. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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% and each of the 7 fields is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no field-level meaning (no note on what makes 'needs' acceptable, or how 'service' relates to which_survey) beyond 'the details the person gives'.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Sends a land survey quote request to Roome Land Surveying') plus the entity it targets, so the agent knows exactly what will happen. It is clearly separable from the read-only informational siblings (service_area, what_to_expect, which_survey, contact_details) because it is the only one that submits a request.

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?

'Properties in Texas only' gives an explicit eligibility boundary, and 'Quotes are free' clarifies that no cost commitment exists for the requester. The description never names the sibling it supersedes at a decision point (e.g. use which_survey first to pick a service, list_services for slugs), so the agent must infer the sequencing from the schema.

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