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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: 'Free text is accepted too' tells the agent the returned choices are advisory rather than a hard enum, which affects how it should validate or constrain user input.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The resource identity and the covered field groups are front-loaded, and the caveat about free text follows immediately after.

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 zero-required-parameter reference lookup with full annotation coverage, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it returns, what fields it covers, and that the values are non-exhaustive. The only minor gap is not indicating the shape of the returned choice structure, which matters little since no output schema exists but the payload is trivially inspectable.

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% and the single optional 'fields' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the dot-notation behavior, so the description correctly does not repeat it. It adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not value-adding.

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?

It identifies the resource specifically as the choice set for the sibling request_quote and enumerates the field groups covered (project type, scale, material, colour), so an agent can tell it returns form option data rather than records. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'lists') and doesn't distinguish itself from list_project_types, which overlaps on the project-type dimension.

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?

Linking the tool to request_quote implies the workflow (fetch choices before composing a quote), but that sequencing is left for the agent to infer. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements and no routing away from list_project_types or get_business_info, which are the plausible confusable siblings.

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