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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that MIB's licensed brokers may follow up to help the customer switch, and it instructs the agent to ask for consent before calling. It also notes the output (estimated annual saving). This covers key side-effects and consent requirements, though it doesn't detail data handling or potential errors.

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 composed of three sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the mechanism and output, and the follow-up/consent requirement. It is front-loaded with the purpose and stays focused. It's slightly longer than strictly necessary, but all content is relevant and no redundancy exists.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description effectively covers what the tool does, what it returns (estimated annual saving), and its side-effect (possible broker follow-up). It also highlights the consent requirement, which is critical for compliance. It doesn't describe error cases or API-specific behavior, but the core information is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that name and phone are required and explains why phone is needed (for broker follow-up), but it doesn't add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The tool's purpose gives context for all parameters, but the schema is already quite descriptive.

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 clearly states the tool's function: a free second opinion on an existing insurance policy, comparing current premium to live market rates and reporting estimated annual savings. It distinguishes itself from the sibling compare_insurance_quotes by focusing on existing policies held by the customer with any insurer, making the scope explicit.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: for policies the customer already holds, not new business. It provides context about requiring consent and potential follow-up, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is sufficient to guide selection, though an explicit exclusion would strengthen it.

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