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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'It doesn't change anything' largely restates structured data. The description does add useful behavioral context about what surfaces in the response (suggested items not yet on the application, a confirmation when a request is ready), but discloses nothing about permissions, freshness, or error cases.

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?

One tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core action and the read-only guarantee at the end. It is long and comma-heavy, but every clause maps to a distinct part of the return payload, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so by enumerating the five payload areas plus the conditional confirmation. Combined with annotations covering safety and a two-optional-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so both 'full' (include every typed fact, masked) and 'intentId' (omit for most recent open intent) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of the 'most recent open intent' fallback adds no meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Read where the customer's insurance shopping stands') and then enumerates the exact payload domains returned (stage, current goal needs, application summary, suggestions, confirmation). That enumeration makes it unmistakably different from siblings like jerry_get_quotes or jerry_get_account without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is only implied through workflow language ('what the current goal still needs', 'when a request is ready, the confirmation to show'), which hints this is the status/pre-flight read. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative or exclusion versus jerry_get_account or jerry_get_quotes.

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