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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it explains that driver_history_codes must be split into driverDetails.claims (code, date, amountPaid) and driverDetails.violations (code, date), which is real invocation guidance the annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose. The second paragraph is dense but each clause (which arrays, which subfields) earns its place as non-obvious mapping detail.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, section semantics, and the trickiest mapping. It does not describe the shape of the returned field list, but that is a minor gap for this tool class.

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?

There is a single required parameter whose enum already enumerates the valid sections, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry meaning. It does: it clarifies that section selects the field set for update_quote and gives particular meaning to the most opaque enum value (driver_history_codes), though a few others (intake, address) stay undefined.

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 ("Lists the fields and allowed values update_quote accepts") and scopes it to "one section", which distinguishes it from the sibling update_quote that it serves. An agent immediately knows this is a schema-introspection helper, not a mutation.

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 ties the tool to update_quote by name, which gives clear implied timing: consult this to learn field names and legal values before updating a quote. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not phrasing or naming any alternative path, so it lands just under the top mark.

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