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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that it "Returns cost range with permit guidance," which is modest extra context given no output schema exists; it says nothing about estimation basis, region, or accuracy caveats.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the return behavior. The trailing "or any electrical project" is mildly redundant after the enumerated examples but does not bloat the definition.

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 usefully discloses the return shape (cost range plus permit guidance), and the schema plus annotations cover inputs and safety. Minor gaps remain around estimation assumptions and locality, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 100% and all three parameters (job, permits, stories) carry descriptions and enums, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 states a specific purpose — estimating cost for electrical work — and enumerates representative jobs (panel upgrade, wiring, outlet installation), which pins the domain clearly against the trade-specific siblings (hvac/plumbing/roofing). It never names a sibling explicitly, but the trade vertical is unambiguous.

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 when a user asks what electrical work will cost" is an explicit, actionable trigger condition. There is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, but the routing intent is clear from the phrasing.

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