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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals a significant side effect: after a valid estimate, Walnai's lead notification flow is triggered with the requester's contact details. This is important behavioral context beyond just calculating an estimate.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Calculates a Walnai service pricing estimate'), and every sentence earns its place. There is no filler or 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?

Given the complex nested schema (one request object with multiple optional sub-objects) and no output schema, the description covers the critical input requirements, the constraint of selecting one service input object, and the important side effect. It doesn't describe the return value, but for a tool with this level of complexity, it is fairly complete.

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 description already covers the request structure and the 'exactly one matching input object' constraint, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description largely repeats this information, adding little new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Calculates' and names the resource ('Walnai service pricing estimate'), making its purpose clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_pricing (which presumably lists pricing) and submit_lead (which directly submits leads).

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 clearly states what to provide ('requester's name, email, and phone number') and the key constraint that 'exactly one service input object that matches estimateType' must be used. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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