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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: it is a 'free planning estimate' and warns 'Do not present it as a binding quote,' plus it mentions returning a visual report. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise—two sentences—with the use case front-loaded in the first sentence and key output/caveat in the second. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

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?

Combined with the output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's core behavior and when to use it. However, it lacks detailed parameter guidance, which is partially mitigated by the schema but still leaves room for more completeness given the tool's complexity.

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 20%, so the description must compensate for the 10 parameters. It only indirectly references the property_type enum (house, apartment, condo, townhouse) and provides no guidance on other parameters like pets, add_ons, condition, or frequency. This is insufficient for 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?

The description clearly states the tool estimates cleaning costs for US homes (house, apartment, condo, townhouse), distinguishing it from sibling tools like estimate_office_cleaning_cost. It also specifies the output (price range, labor hours, etc.), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a user wants a free planning estimate for cleaning a US house...' which is clear guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., for office cleaning), relying on sibling names to imply differentiation.

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