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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, so the write/external-party profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: a real-world human broker will follow up to contact the person, and the data-quality rule 'use real values; if a field is unknown, leave it out.'

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 action and recipient, then the consent precondition, then the data-quality rule. No filler; every sentence carries distinct guidance.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description covers purpose, consent gating, and value sourcing. It relies on schema descriptions to reference get_quote_questions and list_coverages for the nested answers/coverage fields, which is a minor gap but reasonable given full schema coverage.

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 and the schema documents each field. The description adds a real semantic rule not present in the schema – supply only genuine values and omit unknown fields – which affects how the agent populates the 8 parameters.

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 (send a quote request) and names the recipient, Sam Alishahi, as a licensed independent insurance broker. This is clearly distinct from siblings like complete_application or get_quote_questions, which are retrieval/completion tools rather than submission tools.

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 an explicit gating precondition: 'Only call after the person has confirmed they want to be contacted.' This is a strong when-to-use signal. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the siblings are not substitutes, so the guidance is essentially complete.

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