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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly stating 'creates nothing, reserves nothing and contacts nobody,' and adds determinism and instant behavior. It also discloses that out-of-area tasks are rejected, which helps set expectations. No contradiction with 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outputs. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, side-effect guarantees, and edge-case rejection. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 six parameters, rich schema descriptions, annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and rejection conditions. It does not describe the return value shape, but since it explicitly lists what is estimated, the overall context is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds little beyond naming 'evidence' as part of the estimation output and 'service area' as a possible rejection reason, which is marginal value. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Estimate') and resource ('a described task'), and lists concrete outputs: feasibility, price range, turnaround, and evidence. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_request and check_service_area, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 intended use is implied by the title and description—estimate a quote for a task—but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'use submit_request to place the actual task' or 'use check_service_area to verify coverage.' The rejection note hints at service-area constraints but doesn't guide tool selection.

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