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

Annotations already declare the write/side-effect profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description usefully adds the reply-time expectation (1 business day), but doesn't explain what actually happens on send (e.g. whether it emails the business, whether the request can be resubmitted, or how the different service types behave).

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and recipient. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the details an agent needs.

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?

For a 15-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the conditional field rules, the service-type branches, and any indication of what a caller receives or how to proceed after submission.

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?

With only 27% schema description coverage across 15 parameters, the description needs to compensate and provides no parameter meaning at all. Required fields (contact_name, email, phone, postcode), the service enum, and conditional requirements like company-for-office are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (sends a quote request) and resource (office or post-construction cleaning) with the recipient named. It is reasonably distinguishable from get_quote (retrieval) and create_booking (booking), though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings to disambiguate.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over get_quote, get_post_construction_estimate, or create_booking, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and title.

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