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

The description discloses the output behavior ('Returns confirmation with lead ID and company contact details') and notes that the action is performed 'on behalf of the user,' implying a side effect. However, it does not explicitly state that a lead record is created or that the company may be notified, which is a gap given no annotations are present.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief functional sentence, a one-sentence output description, and a clean list of arguments. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameter meanings and the primary return value. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether company_id must exist) or error handling, but these are not critical given the presence of the output schema and clear parameter descriptions.

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?

The description includes an Args section that explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'company_id: Target company UUID', 'project_id: Specific project UUID if the user is interested in a particular house project'). This adds substantial meaning over the input schema, which only provides names and defaults, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific action: 'Send a quote request to a construction company on behalf of the user.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_cost (cost estimation) and get_company (information retrieval). The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description—when the user wants to request a quote—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_cost or project_estimator. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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