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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing the output structure (confidence score, breakdown, red flags with stable IDs), the scoring rubric (40/30/30 weights), and the data usage note about contributing de-identified data to research. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not cover.

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 dense yet compact, with each sentence serving a purpose: purpose, output details, scoring rubric, usage trigger, and a privacy note. It is well-structured and front-loaded, avoiding unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's complexity, the description addresses all key aspects: what it does, what it returns, how the score is calculated, when to use it, and a data usage caveat. The presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation reduces the burden, and the description covers the rest.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it also does not need to, as the schema is 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 with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('bid/estimate'), and defines the scope ('fairness and risk'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'analyze_bid', which may cause ambiguity, but the name and description still make the function clear.

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 usage context: 'Use when a homeowner asks...' or shares an estimate. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for typical scenarios.

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