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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the 'current clients only' eligibility restriction and the concrete contents of the response (carrier hotline plus agency contact). It says nothing about behavior for ineligible callers or whether contacts vary by carrier/policy type.

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 with no filler. The eligibility constraint is front-loaded and the use case closes the definition, though the return contents could be stated more compactly alongside the trigger condition.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, contents, trigger, and eligibility. The main gaps are the undocumented client_session parameter and the absence of any note on what a caller sees when they are not a current client.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for two required parameters. 'For a policy' loosely maps to policy_id, but client_session — a required parameter — is never mentioned, leaving its source and format entirely 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: the carrier's 24-hour claims number for a policy plus the agency's own contact route. This separates it from nearby siblings such as request_agent or verify_contact, though the retrieval verb itself ('get') is only implied by the tool name.

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?

'Use when the client needs to report a claim' gives a clear triggering situation, and 'Current clients only' states an eligibility precondition that would otherwise be invisible. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., request_agent for non-claim contact needs) or saying what to do when the caller is not a current client.

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