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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the non-obvious lifecycle: the request is only started here and requires a separate homeowner.sendRequest to actually go out, plus a photos step. It also discloses the commercial behavior ('Free; never charges lead fees and never sets a price'). It omits auth requirements, whether the request expires or is broadcast to contractors, and any limits on duplicates.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and workflow before the pricing note. The 'Free; never charges lead fees and never sets a price' clause is marketing-adjacent but still justifies whether a user should use this route, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the nested address object is self-describing. But for a 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations, leaving the required 'title' field unexplained and the request's post-creation state (draft vs. broadcast, expiry) unstated leaves the picture incomplete.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, but it only gestures at trade, address and 'what you need' (details). The required parameter 'title' is neither described here nor in the schema, and enum-bearing 'category' is left entirely to its schema note. That leaves a required field the agent must guess at.

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 ('Start') and resource ('customer request for quotes') plus scope ('any home-service work at any US address'), and explicitly separates itself from the two follow-on siblings addPhoto and sendRequest. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the CRM-side siblings like requests_create or requests_formCreate, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 the workflow ordering directly: create first, then addPhoto, then sendRequest, so an agent knows this is step one of a multi-step flow rather than a one-shot submit. It falls short of explicit exclusions (e.g. when to prefer requests_create, or what happens if a request already exists for the same address).

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