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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the tool explains—the free wizard, what happens after submitting, and the direct link—making its scope more concrete without contradicting the annotations.

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 efficiently pack the tool's purpose, geographic scope, and routing guidance to start_project. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully supports correct selection and invocation. It covers what the tool does, the region it applies to, and the key sibling-tool alternative, leaving no critical gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. The empty schema already communicates this, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information.

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 identifies the tool as explaining how the quote process works for Renovation Room Pros, covering the free project-submission wizard, post-submission steps, and the direct link. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling start_project by specifying that this is for general how-does-it-work questions, not specific project handoffs.

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 explicitly states when to use it: for general how-does-it-work questions about the Chicago area, including Northwest Indiana and Southern Wisconsin. It also names the alternative, start_project, and specifies the condition for switching to it—when the user has already described a specific project.

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