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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns. It reveals that the playbook contains steps with underlying numbers, which is useful, but it never explicitly states that this is a read-only retrieval or what the response format looks like. For a content-retrieval tool this is acceptable, but not richly transparent.

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 a single, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. It front-loads the value proposition and enumerates the trades efficiently, though it is a noun phrase rather than a full imperative sentence. Every word contributes to conveying scope and content.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys the essential context: the problem it addresses, the trades it covers, and the nature of the deliverable. The schema handles the allowed values and default. It would be marginally stronger if it mentioned the 'general' fallback trade or response format, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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 already documents the single trade parameter at 100% coverage, including allowed values and the default behavior. The description repeats some trade names but adds little beyond contextual framing around contracting trades. Since schema coverage is high, 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 title states the action and resource clearly: 'Get a lead-generation playbook for a trade.' The description adds specific scope — inbound lead generation for contracting trades such as roofing, paving, and solar — and distinguishes this from pricing, estimation, and installation tools among the siblings. It lacks an explicit verb in the description itself, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs a lead-generation playbook for a specific contracting trade, with quantified steps. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like list_trades or get_pricing. The use case is clear enough, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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