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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful output context — a cost range plus contractor guidance — without contradicting the read-only annotations.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the usage trigger front-loaded and the return value following. 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?

For a simple three-param, no-output-schema calculator, the description covers both when to call it and what it returns. It could add estimation caveats (e.g., regional variance, non-binding range), but nothing essential 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% with fully enumerated params, so the schema already documents job, access, and urgency. The description echoes the job categories in prose but adds no syntax or interpretive value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear purpose: produce a plumbing cost estimate ('what plumbing repair, pipe replacement, or emergency plumbing will cost') and names the return content ('cost range and contractor guidance'). The plumbing domain distinguishes it from electrical/hvac/roofing/solar siblings implicitly, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 ... will cost' gives an explicit trigger condition tied to a user question. No when-not or explicit alternative is stated, but the domain boundary against the other cost calculators is obvious.

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