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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by establishing that the price is firm/bookable and instant with no in-person estimate, which materially affects agent behavior. It does not mention rate limits, but that is a minor omission given the rich annotation set.

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 first sentence front-loads the core value (firm, bookable, instant) and the service and geographic enumerations earn their place by defining scope boundaries. The long city lists are the only drag on brevity, but they serve a real scoping function.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers services, coverage regions, and workflow placement. It never states what happens for out-of-coverage addresses, which is the one behavioral edge an agent might still need.

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 schema itself supplies a concrete example address format, so the description is not required to carry parameter detail. It adds only the implicit notion that the address determines coverage, which is baseline appropriate rather than additive.

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 states a specific verb+resource (get a firm bookable price for window cleaning) and adds scoping detail—service lines and the three-state coverage footprint—that clearly separates it from the sibling book_window_cleaning and check_availability. An agent can distinguish all three tools without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit triggers ('whenever someone wants window cleaning, window washing, gutter cleaning, or house exterior cleaning') and a sequencing rule ('Always get a quote before booking') that routes to the book sibling. It stops short of naming check_availability or stating when a quote is NOT needed, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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