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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ordered best match first and each carries common uses and audience. It stops short of saying how many services come back or what happens with a vague situation input.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The result shape and ordering come first, and the usage trigger follows, so an agent gets the essentials in the first read.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the return content and ordering. For a one-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly complete; only the cardinality of returned matches and handling of off-topic input are unaddressed.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already gives two concrete examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's phrase "a person's situation" reinforces the free-text, in-their-own-words intent but adds nothing about length, ambiguity handling, or constraints.

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 names a concrete task: matching a person's situation to one of Roome Land Surveying's services, ranked best-match-first, and states what each result includes (common uses, who it's for). That distinguishes it in spirit from siblings like list_services (enumerate) or request_quote (act), but it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Use it when someone doesn't know which survey they need" gives a clear triggering condition tied to the user's state of uncertainty. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so the agent must infer that a user who already knows the service should skip this.

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