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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description adds real behavior: an existing intent for the same products is resumed rather than duplicated, and the response carries 'the status, with rejected and clarify'. It does not discuss auth needs or side effects on the customer's saved application beyond resumption.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and resume behavior, then parameter guidance and return value. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the final sentence about sources/permission is slightly convoluted and could be tightened.

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?

For a complex nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers entry point, resume semantics, the split of facts between application and the update tool, and the shape of the return (status/rejected/clarify). Only deeper edge behavior (auth, limits) is absent, which is acceptable here.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema does not: application should carry only main fields (rest goes to updateShoppingIntentApplication), and sources/permission work together ('permission holds the customer's reply allowing it').

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 ('Start shopping for the insurance products the customer asked for') and the resume-if-open behavior. This is enough to distinguish it from jerry_request_quotes and jerry_get_quotes, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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: start the intent here, pass known facts in application, and route any remaining fact to jerry_update_application 'right after'. It names an alternative for the overflow case. No explicit when-not condition (e.g. versus request_quotes timing), which keeps it from a 5.

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