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

The description discloses significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: consent is mandatory before any data leaves, up to 4 agents are contacted under contact_consumer, sell_identity enables sharing with marketing partners, deliveries and refusals are receipted, and POST /forget revokes consent. This is rich, useful transparency for a side-effectful operation.

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 three dense sentences with no filler: it front-loads the action, then covers prerequisites, scope semantics, and side effects. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 9-parameter tool with a nested consent object and no output schema, the description explains prerequisites, consent flow, scope limits, receipting, and revocation. The main gap is that it does not describe the response format or error conditions, so the agent must infer what the tool returns.

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 only 44%, so the description compensates by explaining the core required parameters: quote_id, full name, phone, and especially the consent object's consent modes and the consent URL. It also explains the meaning of the scope parameter. However, optional parameters like best_time, preferred_channel, and verify_token are not addressed in the description.

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 action—connecting the consumer with licensed agents who can quote firm and bind—and names the required prerequisite quote_id from get_quotes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quotes, check_eligibility, and register_agency.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: quote_id, consumer name and phone, and explicit consent. It also describes scope-dependent behavior for contact_consumer versus sell_identity, giving the agent clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the conditions are unambiguous.

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