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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, idempotent write with no open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: this triggers human follow-up by a team member and creates no booking or contractual obligation, plus a consent requirement. It does not say what the caller receives back or how duplicate submissions are handled, so it is good but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences with the action first, then the precondition, then the scope disclaimer. Nothing is redundant and the ordering front-loads the most decision-relevant information.

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 16-parameter submission tool with a real-world side effect and no output schema, the description covers what the call does, the consent requirement, and what it does not commit to. It omits expected turnaround or what the caller gets back after submitting, which would be helpful for a tool that hands off to a human.

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 coverage is 94%, so the schema itself documents nearly every field, including consent, enums, and ranges. The description adds only the 'pass their real contact details' guidance, which reinforces data quality but doesn't explain individual parameters, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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: submits an enquiry so a Showpiece team member arranges a site inspection and a firm quote. The 'firm quote' framing implicitly separates it from the pricing-estimate sibling, but it never names estimate_cleaning_price, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 an explicit precondition ('Only call this once the person has agreed to be contacted') and clear exclusions ('does not book anything or commit anyone to a contract'). It stops short of naming estimate_cleaning_price as the earlier step or describing when in a conversation flow to invoke this versus that tool.

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