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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful context not present in the schema: the walkthrough is free, on-site, and produces a written quote, plus an eligibility rule ('business name or contact name, and email or phone'). However, it says nothing about what happens after submission (scheduling, confirmation, follow-up) and its stated requirement conflicts with the schema's zero required parameters, which could mislead an agent.

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, front-loaded with the action and value proposition. Minor ambiguity in 'business name or contact name, and email or phone' leaves the boolean grouping unclear, costing a point.

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 12-parameter lead-capture mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain what the tool returns or how the request is handled, nor does it cover most fields. It is adequate as a one-line pitch but incomplete as guidance for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 only 17% across 12 parameters, so the description needed to compensate and largely did not. It clarifies only company/contact_name/email/phone as identity fields; sqft, visits_per_week, preferred_times, facility_type, current_vendor, address, notes, and on_behalf_of are left entirely to bare parameter names.

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 and resource: 'Book a free on-site walkthrough and written quote.' That is clearly distinct from get_quote_estimate and check_service_area in intent (booking a visit rather than estimating price or checking coverage), although the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the three siblings, which is a real gap given that get_quote_estimate overlaps with the 'written quote' portion. The only usage-like information is the eligibility statement about contact details, and it never says when NOT to use this tool (for example, outside the service area).

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