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

Annotations only flag destructive/non-idempotent; the description goes further by disclosing that quote history is retained, that stale and locked/submitted cases are rejected, what is returned (completion link), and, importantly, that this does not submit the application or bind coverage. This is meaningful behavior beyond the annotation set.

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-loaded with the core action, followed by prerequisites, side effects, and the user-facing instruction. Slightly dense, but every sentence carries distinct operational or user-guidance value.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return (completion/apply link) and the required user follow-up. Combined with the preconditions and non-submission caveat, an agent has everything needed to invoke and communicate the result correctly.

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 67% and the description adds real meaning: application_token is private and not an eApp ID/UUID/completion URL, quote_id is application-bound, and user confirmation must be explicit. It reinforces rather than duplicates the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it selects a quote previously returned by quote_life_eapp for the same application. This clearly distinguishes it from the quote-generating sibling quote_life_eapp and from the other update_* siblings that modify different parts of the eApp.

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 prerequisite step (a quote from quote_life_eapp for the same application), the required inputs, and explicit rejection conditions: stale selections and locked/submitted applications. An agent knows both the when and the when-not without inference.

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