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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the data is static as published by the site, not a live feed, and availability requires an external app. That staleness caveat is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot express.

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, front-loaded with the resource scope, with the parenthetical table details doing efficient work. The colon-and-list construction is slightly dense but every clause maps to distinct content an agent would otherwise have to discover, so nothing is padding.

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 zero parameters, a full annotation set, and an output schema, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; the description correctly avoids restating return values while still flagging the no-live-availability limitation. The only gap is that an agent cannot tell from this text whether to call get_pricing or get_cycle_times instead for overlapping data.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The enumerated content categories loosely preview the response shape, which is a modest bonus rather than a requirement given the 100% schema coverage.

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 the specific resource (washer and dryer tables plus machine-related FAQ answers) and enumerates exactly what each table contains, which is more than the title alone conveys. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like get_pricing and get_cycle_times, even though it clearly overlaps with them on per-cycle price and cycle minutes.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for machine models, sizes, and capacities. The one explicit boundary is negative scope — there is no live availability feed, and the site defers that to the Speed Queen app — but no sibling tool is named as the preferred alternative for pricing or cycle-time questions.

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