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

Annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the non-binding nature of the price ranges and the on-site confirmation, which is useful context. It does not disclose pagination or exact output structure, but given the annotations, this is sufficient transparency for a browsing tool.

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 concise at two sentences, with clear intent and no filler. It front-loads the main use case, then the exclusion, then the caveat. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the purpose, the alternative, and the non-binding nature of results. With an output schema present and read-only annotations, nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this tool. Minor omissions like pagination exist but are not essential for a browsing operation.

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 has 100% description coverage for both search and category parameters, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description mentions 'browse services' and 'price ranges' but does not add extra parameter-level detail. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score 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 description clearly states the verb (browse) and resource (Johnson Bros. services and price ranges), and explicitly names the alternative tool (get_quote) for issue-specific estimates Alert Alerting agents to what this tool is not for. This differentiates it from siblings like get_quote and browse_catalog.

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 precisely specifies when to use this tool (browsing services or general non-binding price ranges) and when not to (issue-specific estimates, use get_quote). It also adds a practical constraint: final pricing is confirmed on-site before work begins.

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