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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly reveals the token conditional — real snippet vs placeholder with instructions — and states that the response includes both a script and ordered steps. It doesn't discuss errors or side effects, but for a retrieval tool this is strong disclosure.

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 with no filler, front-loading the output deliverable in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a necessary behavioral nuance without repeating schema details.

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 simple retrieval tool with all four parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description plus schema cover what an agent needs: return contents, platform options, mode meaning, and token-omission behavior. Nothing critical appears 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when to pass the contractor's own token versus receiving a placeholder, which is not made explicit in the schema. Other parameters like mode and platform are already fully documented there.

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 identifies the concrete deliverable: 'the exact script tag to paste, plus ordered steps for the given platform.' This makes the tool's role clear relative to pricing, lead, and verification siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative tool.

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 gives conditional usage context ('Pass the contractor's own token if you have it; otherwise...') and the schema's service field says to use estimate_cost for non-roofing trades. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over list_platforms or verify_installation, so much of the routing guidance is left to inference.

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