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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it says which signals are returned (status, options readiness, what's still needed) and discloses a privacy constraint that PII is released only to the same platform user who started the quote. It stops short of describing failure behavior when ownership verification fails.

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, front-loaded with the lookup and identifier, then returns, then the privacy constraint. Every sentence carries information; there is no filler, though the third sentence partly overlaps the verification schema description.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be enumerated, yet the description usefully previews them. It covers lookup, return shape, and the PII/ownership rule, which is enough for a read-only 2-parameter tool; the only gap is what an agent should expect when verification is absent or fails.

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%, including the nested verification object whose schema already states it is 'required to return PII', so the baseline is 3. The description's closing sentence about PII being returned only to the originating platform user lightly reinforces the verification parameter's purpose but adds little the schema does not already say.

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 ('Looks up a quote started earlier, by its quote_id') and names the identifier used for lookup, so the action is unambiguous. It does not however distinguish itself from the sibling check_quote_status, which the phrase 'Returns the quote's status' overlaps with, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The phrase 'a quote started earlier' implies the resume-a-returning-session scenario, which is real usage context, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. check_quote_status, update_quote) is named. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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