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

Annotations only say read-only/idempotent/closed-world; the description adds the behavior that actually matters: this call blocks on carriers for roughly a minute and may return a non-terminal 'quoting' status that requires immediate re-calling. It also discloses the presentation contract (show every rate cheapest-first, include disclosure, no recommendations, escalate coverage questions to the licensed advisor).

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 purpose then the polling rule then the output/policy rules, each sentence carrying an operational constraint. It is long, but almost every clause is a rule the agent must follow rather than filler; the carrier/advisory policy block is dense but earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still names the meaningful response fields an agent must handle: status values, rates, coverages, deductible, selectable, carrier_website, and the disclosure. The one real gap is the provenance of quote_id and any error/timeout behavior.

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 0% for quote_id, and the description never says what quote_id is or where the agent obtains it (presumably from start_quote). With a low-coverage single parameter the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 ('Returns the quotes for a property') and implicitly draws the boundary against select_quote, start_quote and get_property_details by explaining what happens after quotes arrive. An agent can identify this as the retrieve-quotes step without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-call-again guidance keyed on the 'quoting' status, explicit downstream routing to select_quote for rates with selectable=true versus carrier_website for the rest, and explicit exclusions ('do not offer to look up other carriers or to change coverages'). Alternatives and prohibitions are both named.

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