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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does the most important part: 'Contacts no one' tells the agent this is a safe, side-effect-free preview. It does not state whether results are cached, whether permissions or a shop/account context are required, or how many shops can be returned.

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 short sentences: what it lists, the side-effect disclaimer, and the follow-up path. The non-contact guarantee is front-loaded right after the purpose, and nothing is padded.

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 description still sketches the response ('why it matches'). The only real gap is tying the lone request_id parameter to the homeowner request being previewed.

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 0% for the single parameter, and the description only implies it via 'your request' without ever naming request_id or saying it must be an existing homeowner request UUID. The exclude_shop_ids note is about an argument to a different tool, not this one.

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 ('list the shops on Doing Work that would get your request') plus the scope qualifier 'each with why it matches'. That clearly separates it from homeowner_sendRequest, which actually dispatches the request, and from homeowner_getRequest.

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 explicit timing ('Before sending') and a concrete downstream handoff ('pass those to homeowner.sendRequest as exclude_shop_ids'), naming the alternative tool. The when and the what-next are both spelled out rather than inferred.

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