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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it must run before collecting personal details, and it returns licensed states, per-state capabilities, and agent counts. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the privacy-aware timing requirement is a useful behavioral disclosure.

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 each add distinct information: purpose, ordering, and returned data. The imperative 'Call this first' is front-loaded enough to be noticed, and there is no fluff or repetition of the title or schema. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple eligibility check tool.

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 simple read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, and response contents, which offsets the lack of an output schema. The phrase 'what we can do in each' is somewhat vague, and not-licensed or error cases aren't mentioned, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 only 50% (state has a description; product does not), so the description should compensate. It does indicate that state filters results and can be omitted to see all licensed states, but it never explains the `product` parameter, its default/required status, or the two-letter state-code format. That is only partial compensation for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check whether we can return quotes for a state') and adds a clear workflow position ('Call this first'). It also summarizes the return value, making the tool's role obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Call this first' and 'before any personal details are collected' give explicit when-to-use guidance tied to workflow ordering. There are no named alternatives or exclusions, but the ordering instruction is strong enough to guide tool selection. With no sibling list provided, this is appropriately clear.

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