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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. "Explains" signals a read-only informational tool and the topic list implies the content returned, but there is no statement about permissions, account scoping, or whether the answer varies by account state — relevant given siblings like check_account_status and create_contractor_account.

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 sentences, no filler. The content scope comes first so the agent knows what it will learn, and the usage trigger follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the shape of the answer, and it does so by listing the three topics covered. What is missing is any note on account-conditional behavior — an agent cannot tell whether the answer differs by contractor or plan tier.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no space on argument syntax.

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 names a specific resource — install instructions — and enumerates the exact topics covered: the two install paths (iframe embed vs. GroundQuote-hosted page), AI site-builder compatibility, and account ownership. That is concrete and distinguishable from implementation siblings like get_embed_code and set_hosted_page, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"Use before you promise the contractor anything about the install" gives a clear triggering condition and an implicit caution against answering install questions from memory. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use get_embed_code once a path is chosen), so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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