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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the output is grouped into starting versus later services, includes reasons quoting the answers, and explains how each helps. It does not clarify what happens when answers are omitted or incomplete.

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 two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output shape, followed by concrete invocation and next-step guidance. Nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description needs to explain the return shape; it does so by describing grouped recommendations with quoted reasons and benefits. It still leaves minor gaps around optionality of answers, the source of business_type values, and error behavior.

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 50%, so the description must add meaning. It usefully explains that answers are question id to answer id mappings, or a list of ids for 'many' questions, which goes beyond the schema. It does not explain where to obtain the business type id, despite the enum listing slugs.

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 states a specific resource and result: the services UBM recommends for a business, grouped as where to start and what to add later, with reasons and benefits. It also distinguishes itself from the closely related ubm_quote_plan by saying to price the result afterward.

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 gives clear usage context: pass the business type id and answers, then price with ubm_quote_plan. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or how it differs from ubm_request_plan, but the main workflow is clear.

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