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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: concurrent fan-out behavior, partial-result semantics, per-carrier error codes with retryability classification (TIMEOUT/CIRCUIT_OPEN/UNAVAILABLE retryable, CARRIER_ERROR not), the 403-on-ungranted-filter failure mode, and the fact that some carriers silently ignore effectiveDate. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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-loads the core purpose and prerequisites, and every sentence carries operational weight rather than filler. It is a dense single block, though, and would scan faster as discrete assertions, especially the error-code 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 12-param, nested, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the description should: required inputs and their provenance, return shape (carriers[] plan summaries plus errors[]), and the cross-tool handoff needed to actually enroll. Nothing critical to calling 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 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the high-value params: location fields sourced from resolve_zip_counties, carriers/categories as narrowing filters, and maxPlansPerCarrier as 'cheapest few first'. It also documents the selectedPlans handoff contract (same applicants/location/household/effectiveDate), though several nested fields remain undocumented in both places.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+mechanism ('Fans out concurrently to granted carriers for quotes'), immediately distinguishing it from the sibling enrollment/eligibility/location tools. An agent knows exactly what this produces (carrier quote results) before 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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (location from resolve_zip_counties, primary applicant) and routes to a sibling when questionsRequired=true via get_eligibility_questionnaires. It also gives operational guidance — do not treat non-empty errors[] as failure, and retry without a filter on 403 — which is exactly the when/when-not detail most definitions lack.

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