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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds the data source ('Remodeling Magazine Cost vs. Value for the Pacific Northwest') and clarifies outputs are estimates, which sets proper expectations. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the authoritative data source, and practical usage examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids fluff while still being approachable.

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 simple read-only lookup with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, why it exists, and what data underlies it. It appropriately does not detail return values since the output schema exists. Minor omission is lack of explicit routing to related cost-estimation tools, but that is not required for basic completeness.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces projectType through examples like 'kitchen remodel' and hints at estimatedCost through 'resale value added,' but it does not add new parameter information beyond the schema.

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 precise verb ('Get the estimated return on investment') and a specific resource ('home remodeling project in the Seattle area'), with data basis. The use-case examples further distinguish it from sibling tools like get_estimate or list_projects by emphasizing ROI/resale value.

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 identifies the decision context ('Helps homeowners decide which projects add the most resale value') and gives concrete example queries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so agents must infer boundaries from the sibling list.

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