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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real behavioral context: unknown limits are not filled in or guessed, each required increase is returned separately, and it explicitly disclaims claim-payout and eligibility determinations — scoping the output beyond what annotations convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the input constraint, then the output caveat. Dense and nearly waste-free; only slight overlap between the required-from-quote instruction and the identical wording already in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a 9-parameter, conditionally-structured tool the description supplies the key operational caveats (quote-sourced requirements, unknown stays unknown, per-increase results), though it could have noted the structure-dependent required fields it only gestures at.

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%, including the enum explanation and the null-vs-zero distinction, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description reinforces the 'from the quote, not assumed minimums' intent but adds no format or structural detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (check) and resource (an underlying policy against a specific umbrella quote's liability requirements), and enumerates the covered policy types. It does not name a sibling like umbrella_limit_planner or umbrella_calculator, so the agent must infer the boundary from the 'requirements from that quote' framing rather than an explicit contrast.

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 input-sourcing guidance ('supply requirements from that quote, not assumed carrier minimums') and a data-handling rule ('missing current limits stay unknown'), which shape how to call it. It gives no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of signal against the several umbrella siblings, leaving the routing inference to the agent.

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