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

The description discloses the side effect of capturing a lead in the CRM when contact is provided, and states the return of a deep-link URL. It does not mention other potential side effects but covers the main 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 one sentence, direct, and includes the essential information about the tool's purpose, return, and side effect without unnecessary fluff.

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 complexity of 8 parameters, nested objects, and an enum, the description provides insufficient context about parameter relationships, defaults, and required fields. It does not mention that only contact is optional or that purchase_path defaults to 'installed'.

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?

With no schema coverage, the description should explain each parameter, but it only clarifies that contact is optional and captures a lead. Other parameters like family, motor_id, trade_in, boat_info, horsepower, purchase_path, and customer_has_propeller remain unexplained, relying on naming conventions.

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 builds an itemized CAD quote and returns a deep-link URL, differentiating it from sibling tools that estimate, get, or search for specific data.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., when to use get_motor or estimate_trade_in). It implies it is the main action but lacks direct comparison or conditional usage.

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