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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safe, non-mutating profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about return values (licensed states, capabilities, agent counts) and emphasizes it does not require personal details, which is informative beyond the annotations but not fully exhaustive about, say, behavior when state is omitted.

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?

Two sentences clearly outline the purpose, the invocation step, and the expected return value. The phrasing is precise and compact, with no unnecessary details, earning high marks for efficiency and clarity.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with a rich return description in the prose, the definition covers the key aspects an agent needs: when to call it, what to pass (partially), and what to expect back. Slight deduction because the description doesn't clarify optional state behavior or the response format beyond the high-level list, but overall this is a complete enough definition for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers the product parameter (enum, default, required), and the description doesn't repeat it. The state parameter is described via the schema's two-letter US state code hint, but the description's mention of licensed states and agent counts implies how state may be used. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description could have added more about state semantics (e.g., whether it's optional or affects output), but it still provides some implied meaning.

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 identifies a specific action (checking eligibility before personal details are collected), a specific resource (states where quotes can be returned), and a defined outcome (which states are licensed in, what can be done in each, how many agents are available). This distinguishes it from other tools by emphasizing its pre-check, pre-personal-detail nature.

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 states when to use the tool ('Call this first') and clarifies its role as a preliminary check before collecting personal details. This gives the agent a clear directive on invocation order and when it is the appropriate tool, though it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the strong 'call this first' instruction serves the same purpose.

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