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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, but the description adds real behavioral content: alphabetical ordering, that it only reads published facts and returns links, and that it never writes, sends email or submits enquiries. The remaining bulk is operator/legal boilerplate (referral fee, licensed broker, Hong Kong signing) which is context rather than tool behavior.

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 functional statement is front-loaded, but roughly two-thirds of the text is regulatory disclaimer (referral fees, licensing, cross-border sales) that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. Signal-to-noise is mediocre.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema required, the missing pieces are the undocumented locale parameter and any description of the returned link structure. The legal context is complete, but the operational picture is partially incomplete for a 4-parameter 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names type, currency and insurer but omits the locale parameter entirely, and gives no indication that type/insurer are kebab-case slugs or that locale is a language selector. Parameter names are echoed without added semantics.

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: 'Filter sourced comparison-page facts by type, currency and insurer,' and adds the alphabetical-order constraint. It is clear what the tool returns (published comparison facts), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_product or get_insurer.

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?

The description lays out legal/compliance restrictions ('General information only', 'no product recommendation') but never says when to pick this tool over get_product, get_insurer or get_fulfillment_ratios. There is no alternative routing, only prohibition text.

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