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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, closed-world), so the description's job is to add scope detail, which it does: it enumerates the returned fields and explicitly states contact details are excluded. This tells the agent what it will and will not get back.

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 tight sentences: purpose and id provenance first, then the returned fields and the contact exclusion. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (trades, service areas, services offered, about text) and stating what is omitted. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it is missing.

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 single id parameter is already documented as 'The listing id from search_pros results', which the description essentially repeats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries full parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one contractor's public listing summary'), names the source directory, and ties the lookup to the id produced by search_pros, which cleanly separates it from its sibling search tool.

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 makes the natural workflow explicit ('id returned from search_pros') and routes contact-related needs elsewhere ('contact happens on the profile page or through the project form'), implicitly pointing at start_project. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or naming the contact sibling directly.

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