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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'Reads the centralized policy source of truth,' implying a non-mutating operation, and mentions state-correctness and restrictions. It does not explicitly state it makes no changes or discuss potential errors, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Reads' and 'Explain.'

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?

The description is somewhat long but every sentence adds unique value: product list, data sources, DWP detail, parameter usage, and explicit guidance to not rely on memory. It is structured logically from products to usage, but could be tightened by reducing redundancy (e.g., 'DWP' is mentioned with its full name and purpose twice).

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?

Given the complexity of coverage products and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (deductibles, limits, benefits, links, availability), how to get state-correct info, and why it should be used over memory. It covers the essential aspects an agent needs to confidently invoke and interpret the tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the purpose of passing state or location—to get exact SLI limits and online availability restrictions (FL/GA/TX examples). This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions of state and location.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: explaining Bandago's optional insurance/coverage products. It lists specific products (CDW, DWP, RLP, SLI, PAI, THE WORKS) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rate_quote and check_availability by focusing on coverage details rather than pricing or availability.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'call this for any question about deductibles or lowering the deductible' and 'Use this instead of quoting coverage details from memory.' Also gives context for when to pass state/location to get state-correct limits and online eligibility, effectively covering when and why to use this tool.

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