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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: licensing limitations, no PII requirement, quote_id registration for unlicensed scenarios, and the server's iterative request for missing facts. It goes well beyond the structured annotations and paints an accurate picture of the tool's runtime 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 description is three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the PII constraint, the licensing fallback, and the missing-facts behavior. Every sentence conveys a distinct and useful fact, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has no output schema and 10 parameters, the description covers the key invocation requirements and expected outputs well: prices when licensed, quote_id when not licensed, and interactive fact-filling. It could be more complete by describing the response shape for the licensed case, but the essential behavior for correct invocation is present.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the general principle that parameters are 'rating facts only' and that PII is not required. It does not clarify individual parameters such as vehicle_make_model format, annual_mileage units, or prior_continuous meaning. The required fields like garaging_zip, date_of_birth, and vehicle_year receive no additional semantic explanation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return indicative auto insurance prices from multiple carriers.' It also specifies a scope condition ('where this entity is licensed to show them'), which clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like check_eligibility or market_data. The purpose is immediately recognizable and not a tautology.

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 gives clear context for when to call the tool: when an indicative auto insurance price is needed, using only rating facts and no PII. It also explains the fallback when not licensed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus a sibling such as check_eligibility or market_data, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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