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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent behavior; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — an outbound e-mail side effect, a returned token, and that no human is notified until confirmation. It does not mention that repeated calls re-send codes or what happens to a stale token, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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, front-loaded with the action and side effect, then the required next step. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What an agent still needs — the two-step flow, the e-mail side effect, and the handoff to confirm_quote — is all present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents email, service, answers, language, and company, including the get_quote_questions reference. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond reiterating that a code goes to the client's address, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (starts a quote request) and states the concrete mechanics: e-mails a 6-digit code and returns a token. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling confirm_quote, which it explicitly names as the follow-up step.

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 gives clear sequencing guidance: call this first, ask the client for the code, then call confirm_quote with the same details. That routes the agent to the right sibling, though it never states when this tool should not be used (e.g. resuming an already-started request).

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