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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: prices are non-binding and final pricing is confirmed on-site before work begins. It stops short of return-format or coverage scope details, but the added pricing caveat is material.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: use case, exclusion with alternative, and a pricing caveat. The routing information 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?

An output schema exists (return values need no prose) and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's job is usage framing — which it fully delivers via the trigger, exclusion, and pricing caveat.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (search, category) are already documented with examples and enum-like values. The description adds no syntax or filtering guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('browse services or general non-binding price ranges') and explicitly separates itself from the estimate-oriented sibling get_quote. An agent can route between this and get_quote without opening either 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?

States both the positive trigger (user wants to browse services or price ranges) and the exclusion ('Do not use it for an issue-specific estimate; use get_quote'), naming the alternative outright. This is the explicit when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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