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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant, but the description adds genuine behavioral context by explaining the two coverage outcomes (pre_ranked shortlist vs live_sourced) and confirming it is side-effect free. It stops short of describing response shape or partial-match behavior, which with a rich output schema is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded and efficient: purpose, then the pre_ranked/live_sourced distinction, then the when-to-call rule and the exclusion. The leading 'Read-only.' restates the annotation rather than adding information, a small piece of waste.

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?

Covers what the tool does, its safety profile and its call-ordering relative to request_quotes, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It never notes that all four parameters are optional (zero required), which would help an agent understand a bare no-arg call is valid.

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 city, trade, region and country are already fully documented with examples and enum guidance. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Lists the trades supported and tells you whether a city ... is covered') and even distinguishes the two coverage modes (pre_ranked vs live_sourced). An agent can tell it apart from request_quotes and get_request_status without opening any 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?

Explicit routing: 'Call this before request_quotes if you are unsure the trade or city is supported,' names the alternative sibling and the condition that selects it, and closes with a negative boundary ('It does not create a request or contact anyone').

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