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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context: the private-token requirement, the explicit 'does not change the application' guarantee, and the note that returned quote_id selections are bound to this application and its current revision. That revision-binding caveat is non-obvious behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then auth, then mutation status, then output binding. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct fact, though the density borders on terse.

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 tool with no output schema and a large nested `changes` object, the description covers purpose, auth, mutation semantics, and the meaning of returned quote_ids. It omits how saved inputs interact with overrides at field level, but is adequate for correct invocation.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the schema documents many leaf fields but leaves others bare. The description clarifies the role of the `changes` object as 'optional scenario changes' layered on saved rating inputs, and reinforces that the token is private and not a UUID/eApp ID/completion URL, but adds no field-level syntax or format detail.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Get fresh non-annuity quotes for the eApp', scoped to eApp-based quoting with saved rating inputs. The 'non-annuity' qualifier implicitly separates it from annuity/final-expense siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States the auth precondition (requires the private application_token) and that it does not mutate the application, which implies usage. However, it never contrasts with siblings like quote_life_insurance, quote_term_life, or update_life_eapp_quote, so the agent must infer when this eApp-bound re-quote is preferred over a fresh quote.

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