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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool lists (trades) and the type of information included (measurement basis and cost ranges), but it does not disclose potential side effects (likely none, read-only), performance, or any error conditions. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: the first states the tool's output and content, the second gives a clear use case. Every word earns its place, no fluff, and the key information (what it lists and how to use it) is front-loaded.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough to guide an agent. It explains what is returned (trades, measurement basis, cost ranges) and the use case. It might lack detail on the exact structure of output, but for a list tool that is acceptable. The sibling tools are distinct, so the context is well-covered.

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 documentation already covers the parameter 'search' (optional trade name or synonym) with examples. The description does not add much beyond what the schema says, but it implies the search is for filtering trade names. Given 100% schema coverage, the description's marginal addition (that the list can be filtered to answer specific queries) still adds value by setting expectation that search is optional and for lookup.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it lists trades that can be quoted from satellite imagery, along with what each is measured from and cost ranges. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the list of priceable trades rather than cost estimation or other functions.

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 explicitly guides when to use the tool: to answer whether a given business can be quoted this way. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the phrase 'Use this to answer whether a given business can be quoted this way' implies it should be used before estimating costs or getting pricing, providing clear context without exclusions.

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