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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: the $5,000–$100,000,000 coverage range subject to carrier/product limits, the monthly/annual payment constraint, and the caution to never infer eligibility.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and the coverage/payment constraints follow. Slightly list-like but every sentence carries operational information.

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, 7-required quoting tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, constraints, health-value sourcing, and how the returned quote_id flows downstream. It stops short of describing result cardinality or comparative ranking, but is largely complete.

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 64%, and the prose supplements it usefully: it clarifies the coverage range mapped to death_benefit, ties 'mode' to monthly/annual payments, and explains that health is an explicit assumed value sourced from get_life_quote_requirements rather than inferred.

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 ('Get final-expense life insurance quotes') with scope detail (burial/funeral coverage). It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'No term duration', which separates it from quote_term_life/quote_life_insurance.

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 clear downstream context ('each returned quote_id can be used with create_life_eapp after user selection') and points to get_life_quote_requirements for health values. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over the sibling quote_life_insurance or quote_term_life beyond the passing 'no term duration' remark.

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