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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent and non-destructive. Beyond them, the description adds genuine behavioural detail: up to 5 firms returned, ranked cheapest first, totals inclusive of VAT, and the caveat that quotes are indicative and non-binding — the most important disclosure for an agent deciding how to present results.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, inputs second, return shape and caveat last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant material (indicative, non-binding, cheapest-first ranking) is present without repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-shape burden by naming the fields (legal fees inc VAT, disbursements, grand total) and the 5-firm cap. Minor gaps remain — quote validity period and whether prices are per-transaction or per-property — but the definition is callable as written.

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 67% and the schema already documents price-in-GBP and the transaction_type meanings. The description's only real addition is the tenure trade-off ("leasehold usually costs more"), which is useful but marginal, so it sits at the baseline-plus level.

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 specific verb and resource ("Get instant, indicative conveyancing quotes from the OpenMoov solicitor panel") and scopes it to UK purchase, sale or remortgage. An agent can distinguish it from neighbours such as get_selling_fee_quote or calculate_stamp_duty without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call: a UK purchase, sale or remortgage, with an optional tenure dimension and the note that leasehold usually costs more. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_selling_fee_quote instead), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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