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

Given minimal annotations (only openWorldHint: true), the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains that the tool routes leads to installer partners, may earn a referral fee, returns a lead ID, and confirms next steps. It also explicitly warns about side effects like double-call prevention and opt-in requirements.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes examples and caveats. While slightly long, every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical: purpose, usage conditions, return value, caveats. A minor reduction for not being more compact.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description explains the return value (lead ID and next steps). It covers all relevant context: geographic scope (TX), eligibility (homeowner), privacy (opt-in), business model (referral fee), and de-duplication (single lead per opt-in per address). This is complete for 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 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond what the schema already provides. The description includes example user statements that imply parameter values (e.g., address, interest level), but it does not elaborate on parameter meanings or formats beyond the schema descriptions.

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's action: 'Capture a Texas homeowner's interest in rooftop solar and route to a licensed installer'. It specifies the resource (Texas homeowner), the action (capture and route), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on solar lead generation rather than utility comparison or signup for other services.

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 provides explicit conditions for use: 'use when the user owns (or is buying) a Texas home and mentions solar panels, solar quotes, solar savings, or reducing their bill through solar'. It includes example user statements, specifies when not to use (renters, non-TX, double-call), and advises on handling mild curiosity before invoking.

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