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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag non-read-only and open-world), the description discloses the verification-code send, the attribution-only nature of assistant_name, the 18-day default and 45-day carrier horizon for desired_start_date, and the return of a quote_id plus remaining missing details. It doesn't mention whether a repeat call creates a duplicate quote despite idempotentHint=false, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, then preconditions, then per-parameter notes. Every sentence carries information, though the second paragraph is a dense run of field notes that could be broken out slightly.

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 16-parameter, 10-required mutation with no output schema, the description covers the return contract and the consent prerequisites well, but leaves multiple rating-relevant fields (date_of_birth, years_at_address, unit) unexplained, so an agent can't confidently populate the full payload from the definition alone.

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 must carry the load. It adds real meaning for consent_accepted, consent_version, desired_start_date, verify_by, and assistant_name, but says nothing about lines (AUTO/HOME enum), date_of_birth, years_at_address, unit, or the address/contact fields — roughly half the parameters remain semantically bare.

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 verb and resource — 'Starts a Tennessee auto and/or home insurance quote that compares multiple carriers' — and adds a concrete side effect (sending a 6-digit verification code). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like start_flood_quote, start_life_quote, and check_eligibility.

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?

Preconditions are explicit: check_eligibility must have returned eligible, the shopper must have read and agreed to the consent text, and consent_accepted/consent_version must reflect that version. However, it never explicitly says to use start_flood_quote/start_life_quote for other lines, leaving the sibling routing to be inferred from 'Tennessee auto and/or home'.

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