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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior; the description reinforces this with 'call this once per quote' and 'send every field the user confirmed, not only the ones they changed,' which discloses full-payload replace semantics rather than a patch — a genuinely useful behavioral detail. It still doesn't cover partial-field rejection, retry behavior, or what happens to an existing quote on resubmission.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and side effect, then the payload rule, then the next-step routing. Nothing is padded and every sentence carries a distinct instruction.

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?

For a 25-parameter mutation with annotations and a richly documented schema, the description covers the call-once rule, payload completeness, and follow-up polling. It lacks only peripheral context such as where quote_id originates or failure handling, which is minor given the schema depth.

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 96%, so nearly every parameter is already documented, including enum value glosses. The description only adds the cross-cutting rule that all confirmed fields must be sent, not field-level meaning, so the 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 and resource ('Submit the property facts... request quotes from DwellQuote's carriers') and implicitly separates itself from start_quote/get_property_details by making clear this is the quote-request step. An agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the flow without opening the 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 real sequencing guidance ('Call this once per quote; then poll get_quotes'), naming the follow-up sibling explicitly. It does not contrast against start_quote or say what to do if submission fails, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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