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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read only' adds no new information. It does add useful scope context beyond annotations: the pricing is 'verified public' and excludes 'specialty and commercial quotes'. No contradiction exists between description and 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope efficiently. The phrase 'Read only' is redundant with the annotations, but it is short and does not meaningfully bloat the description.

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?

The tool has a small parameter set, self-documenting enums, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description covers purpose, service scope, and exclusions well. It does not mention the locale parameter or specific sibling alternatives, but those are minor given the structured metadata present.

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 description maps the required 'service' parameter to 'Wash & Fold' and 'pickup/delivery', matching the enum values. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not add explicit parameter-level guidance for the optional 'locale' parameter. The locale enum and default are self-explanatory in the schema, but the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('verified public pricing and minimums') scoped to 'Wash & Fold or pickup/delivery'. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding specialty and commercial quotes, making it easy to tell apart from sibling tools about hours, policy, ordering, and services.

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 implies when to use the tool: when public Wash & Fold or pickup/delivery pricing is needed. It also gives an explicit when-not boundary by stating that specialty and commercial quotes are excluded. However, it does not name a specific sibling alternative for those excluded quote types.

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