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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the calculation is preliminary, final price is confirmed by operator, electronic signature is included, and visit is ignored for damage. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded: first sentence states purpose. All information is relevant and no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core algorithm and key rules but lacks details about the return value (e.g., what the output looks like, whether it returns a price or a quote). With no output schema, this is a gap. Also, it does not mention required prior steps like selecting a service.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds business logic meaning: explains calculation algorithm (base price by type, discount, inclusions). For example, it clarifies that 'visit' is ignored for damage cases, which the parameter description does not say.

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 it calculates preliminary cost of an appraisal report, exactly like the website calculator. It names specific components (base price, visit, copies, delivery, discount) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_services or create_lead.

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 implies usage context (requires service_id, conditional behavior for damage) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No direct comparison to sibling tools.

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