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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable context: 'Does not return a price: Juicy Designs replies with a custom proposal within four working hours' and the consent requirement. No contradiction with annotations. It fully discloses the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is three sentences, all informative and necessary. It front-loads the purpose and then provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns: 'Juicy Designs replies with a custom proposal within four working hours.' It covers required steps (read back, consent). With 9 parameters (5 required), it is complete enough. Could mention output format, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds critical semantics for the consent_to_contact parameter: 'Set consent_to_contact only when the user has actually agreed.' This goes beyond the schema description. For other parameters, the schema descriptions are sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Request a free, no-obligation quote from Juicy Designs', specifying the agency and location. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., book_strategy_session, get_case_studies) by being the quote request tool.

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?

The description provides explicit instructions: 'Before calling, read the collected fields back to the user and get explicit confirmation, including consent to be contacted.' It also clarifies that it does not return a price, setting user expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use sibling tools instead.

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