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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: an opaque quote_id valid for 30 minutes, the shape of returned content (product details, benefit comparisons, application guidance), and a hard instruction not to invent missing inputs or an underwriting class. It does not cover failure modes for out-of-range inputs or rate limits.

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 sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: retrieval semantics, output contents, quote_id lifetime, and the handoff to create_life_eapp. Front-loaded with the core action and free of redundancy, though the closing imperative reads as a rules reminder rather than tool description.

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 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and flags the 30-minute quote_id constraint that would otherwise trap an agent into reusing stale ids. Optional height/weight behavior and error semantics are left entirely to the schema, a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 55%, so roughly half the 11 parameters are undocumented in both places (state, smoker, death_benefit, term_duration carry no prose). The description's contribution is limited to a general 'explicit user-provided' framing plus the no-invention rule; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already encodes.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and a precisely scoped resource ('term-life quotes'), which separates it from quote_final_expense and quote_life_insurance on product line. It does not name any sibling outright, so an agent must infer the boundary from the product term rather than being told.

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?

It states the precondition (explicit user-provided rating inputs) and the follow-on action ('After the user selects a quote and requests an application, call create_life_eapp'), which is real routing guidance to a named sibling. What is missing is a when-not case or the contrast against get_life_quote_requirements, which is only implied.

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