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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context beyond the annotations: no personal details are needed, it should be called first, and it returns licensing coverage, capabilities, and licensed agent counts. This enriches the operational understanding of the tool.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes both sequencing guidance and a concise summary of the return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately describes the return contents: licensed states, per-state capabilities, and licensed agent counts. It also covers call ordering and the absence of personal data requirements. It is slightly open how the optional state parameter behaves when omitted, but the plural 'states' strongly implies the all-states 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?

The schema describes the state parameter as a two-letter code, and the description adds meaningful guidance by linking it to eligibility and noting the returned states. It also implies the tool can return licensed states generally, which clarifies optional state usage. The product parameter is self-explanatory through its enum/default of 'auto,' so the partial schema coverage is adequately compensated.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: a pre-collection eligibility check for returning quotes in a state. It distinguishes itself implicitly from quote retrieval by emphasizing the 'before any personal details are collected' step and 'Call this first.' The resource and action are specific and immediately understandable.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first,' which gives clear sequencing guidance and identifies this as the initial prerequisite check. It could be stronger by naming the alternative sibling tools, such as get_quotes, to explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the intended context is clear.

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