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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the result is indicative rather than a binding quote, prices are ex GST in AUD, volume discounts are included, and the service is Sydney-only with a two-visit minimum. It does not discuss rate limits or precision of the estimate, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and its caveat, then input guidance, then the escalation path. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 still characterizes the return value (monthly range, AUD, ex GST, discount-inclusive) and flags its non-binding nature. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the note that hours_per_week is more accurate than area_sqm. The description restates that preference and the area-or-hours choice but adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 specific verb and resource: returns an indicative monthly price range in AUD ex GST for recurring commercial cleaning in Sydney, including volume discounts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a quote and from the sibling request_site_inspection, so an agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit input guidance (provide area_sqm, or hours_per_week if known because it is more accurate), a hard eligibility constraint (Showpiece cleans from 2 visits per week), and a named next step (use request_site_inspection to proceed). The when-to-use and when-to-escalate paths are both covered.

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