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

The description says that for unlicensed territories "the request is still registered and a quote_id returned," which describes a state-changing side effect, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: registering a request and returning a quote_id implies creating state, not a read-only operation.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies the minimal data requirement, and the third explains fallback behavior and error handling. No redundancy and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys the key return values: prices and a quote_id when unlicensed. It also covers missing-facts behavior. It could be more explicit about the exact response shape, but the essential behavioral path is complete for an agent.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate for most parameters. It usefully frames all inputs as "rating facts" and excludes PII, but it does not explain the meaning of several parameters like prior_continuous, violations_3yr, or annual_mileage beyond their self-explanatory names. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Return indicative auto insurance prices from multiple carriers." It also clarifies the licensing condition, which distinguishes this from siblings like market_data or check_eligibility by stating exactly what kind of output is produced.

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?

It clearly explains when prices will be returned and what happens when the entity is not licensed, plus it explicitly states that only rating facts are needed and that PII is not required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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