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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the content scope (credentials, quoting model) and the precondition-style guidance, but says nothing about return format or length, leaving some behavioral gaps for an info tool with no output schema.

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 tight sentences: the first lists the facts returned, the second gives the call ordering. Content is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema info tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what facts come back and when to call it. Slightly short of full marks because an agent cannot tell whether the response is structured text or prose, which matters when composing a follow-up.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless lookup by describing fixed facts about one business.

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 resource and enumerates the content: site types, service area, compliance credentials, quoting process, tied to a named business (Showpiece Commercial Cleaning, Sydney). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with estimate_cleaning_price or request_site_inspection.

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?

"Call this first to check Showpiece is a fit" gives concrete sequencing guidance that positions it ahead of the pricing and inspection siblings. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the ordering instruction is actionable.

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