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

Annotations only convey readOnly and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: when the entity is not licensed, the request is still registered and a quote_id is returned; and if facts are missing, the server asks for exactly what it needs. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline and helps the agent anticipate interactions.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then adds two pieces of useful behavior in a compact way. Each sentence earns its place, though the third sentence is slightly long.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main outcomes: prices when licensed, quote_id when not licensed, and server-driven requests for missing facts. It does not fully specify the result payload in the licensed case, but the behavioral notes cover the major ambiguity an agent would face.

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 low at 20%, so the description needs to compensate. It does clarify that inputs are 'rating facts only' and explicitly excludes PII, which narrows the meaning of the parameters. However, it does not explain the individual non-obvious fields (e.g., years_licensed, prior_continuous, violations_3yr), so the agent still lacks detailed guidance for those parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Return indicative auto insurance prices from multiple carriers'. It also specifies a key scope condition ('where this entity is licensed to show them'), which distinguishes it from generic quote or contact routing tools among the siblings.

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 gives clear usage context: it accepts rating facts only, excludes sensitive personal data, and explains what happens when the entity is not licensed to show prices. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool, but no other sibling appears to perform quoting, so the guidance is sufficient.

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