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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the output composition, the estimates-only nature, and the limitation that final diagnosis, equipment recommendations, availability, and pricing require on-site evaluation. This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond a simple 'runs analysis' statement.

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 crisp, purposeful sentences. The first states the action and output; the second immediately qualifies the output with the estimates/on-site caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the tool description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently populate all inputs or interpret the full output. The return-value summary is helpful, but the parameter semantics and sibling routing remain under-explained.

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 only 23% (3 of 13 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. It references a multi-year cost comparison but does not explain how fields like repairCostInput, replaceCostInput, safetyFlags, priorRepairs, or utilityBill factor in. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('repair-or-replace decision engine'), and the exact output (REPAIR, REPLACE, DEPENDS, or IMMEDIATE_SERVICE) with reasoning and a multi-year cost comparison. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_repair_or_replace_tool_info and search_hvac_decision_content.

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 implies this is the tool to use when an HVAC repair-or-replace recommendation is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools, nor does it give exclusion criteria. The 'Estimates only' caveat provides some context for expectations, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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