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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden and does so thoroughly: idempotency-key derivation from identical arguments, the filed=true/false state machine (SYNCED/SKIPPED/BACKUP_FILED vs RECEIVED/SYNC_FAILED/upstream unavailable), and an explicit 'never files twice' guarantee. It also discloses the consent-audit requirement and that filing is handed to a human agent, which no annotation could convey.

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?

Long, but every clause carries operational weight — the severity flag is front-loaded, then ordering constraints, then success/failure semantics, then user-facing handoff. Nothing is decorative and no sentence repeats what the schema already states in structured form.

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 11-parameter nested-write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, consent prerequisites, failure/retry behavior, and the user-facing follow-up (relay submissionId and nextStep verbatim). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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?

Beyond the 64% schema coverage, the description supplies cross-field semantics the schema cannot: selectedPlans must be {carrier, planId} taken from quote_carriers, and applicants/location/household/effectiveDate must match the quote exactly. It also defines the knockout-rule relationship between `answers` and expectedAnswer, and the verbatim-only constraint on consentStatement.

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 (files applicants/contact/plans/answers for manual completion) and immediately disambiguates from the enrollment-confirmation meaning an agent might assume. It also names the upstream sibling (quote_carriers) whose output feeds the parameters, so it is clearly distinguishable from get_eligibility_questionnaires and resolve_zip_counties.

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 when-to-use ('only call after the user has explicitly agreed to submit'), explicit when-not ('never enroll in a carrier's plans after a knockout answer'), and explicit alternatives on failure (PLAN_NOT_FOUND → quote again). Routing conditions are stated, not inferred.

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