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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that access needs no login and that the response includes next_url plus funnel metadata, but it says nothing about whether calling it persists an 'intent', whether it is idempotent, or what rate limits apply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in purpose and parameter guidance.

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 description partially offsets the missing output schema by naming the key return field next_url and the funnel metadata. However, for a tool with four undocumented optional parameters and no annotations, it omits too much parameter and usage context to be considered 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across all four parameters (city_slug, move_date, housing_type, current_provider), and the description adds no per-parameter meaning, formats, or accepted values. Only a faint domain hint ('comparison questionnaire') loosely motivates the fields.

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 what the tool returns (next_url and funnel metadata) and the domain (comparison questionnaire), but never plainly states the action the tool performs. A name like get_subscribe_intent implies creating or resolving a subscription intent, while the text describes a questionnaire fetch, leaving the actual operation ambiguous relative to siblings like gridlabs_get_tariff_scenario.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of which sibling to pick for adjacent tasks such as tariff scenarios or address search. The only routing signal is the parenthetical '(public, no login)', which speaks to prerequisites rather than tool selection.

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