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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: absent carriers are not an error, empty categories signal nothing-to-ask-or-rejected, expectedAnswer is a knockout, and errors[] entries carry TIMEOUT/CIRCUIT_OPEN/UNAVAILABLE (retryable) vs CARRIER_ERROR (not). This is far beyond what any structured field discloses.

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 the purpose, then dense but purposeful behavioral detail. Sentences are packed and use semicolons heavily, making it a wall of text, but every clause adds actionable information (verbatim answers, HTML handling, error taxonomy).

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 9-param, nested-object tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers input sourcing, downstream handoff to submit_enrollment (verbatim questionText/answerText with questionsId), error handling, and re-quote conditions. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 only 44% across 9 params, and the description compensates notably: it pins selectedPlans to quote_carriers output and requires the same primary/spouse/dependents/location/household/effectiveDate as the quote. It adds real meaning for the most consequential params, though it doesn't address the remaining undocumented fields.

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 ('Fetches each carrier's eligibility questionnaire') and scopes it to 'the plans the applicant selected'. This clearly distinguishes it from quote_carriers and submit_enrollment, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit guidance on how to call it (pass selectedPlans as {carrier, planId} from quote_carriers, with the SAME applicants/location/household/effectiveDate used for the quote) plus when-not semantics (UHC/ONESHARE absent, PLAN_NOT_FOUND means re-quote). It names the upstream sibling and the prerequisite consistency condition.

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