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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds context beyond these by clarifying that it estimates workload only, not availability or price, and lists supported property types. This gives the agent a clear behavioral boundary without contradicting the 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?

The description is exceptionally concise—two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary usage case, then adds property type coverage and exclusions. Every sentence 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations provide safety traits, the description covers the essential aspects for tool selection and general invocation. It communicates what the tool does, when to use it, and what it does not do. However, the lack of parameter guidance slightly reduces completeness, but overall it is adequate for a read-only estimation tool.

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 description provides no information about the 8 input parameters. With schema description coverage at only 13% (only postal_code has a description), the agent must infer parameter meanings solely from the schema itself. This is a significant gap for parameters like property_type, square_feet, condition, and cleaning_type, which are central to the tool's function.

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: to estimate cleaning time and crew size. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('cleaning time and crew'), and explicitly differentiates from cost or availability tools by stating it is 'not worker availability or a price quote'.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when a user asks how long a cleaning job may take or how many cleaners are needed.' It also gives a clear when-not boundary by stating it does not estimate worker availability or price. While it does not name alternative sibling tools, the scope is sufficiently distinct.

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