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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses rich behavior: say preamble first, one ask_together block per turn, questions must be relayed verbatim and not reworded, and can_answer_here=false hands off to a Sigo agent while the customer retains the link. This is well past what the annotations cover.

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?

Dense but mostly earned; the turn protocol and verbatim requirement each justify their place. The first sentence is front-loaded with opaque references rather than the tool's core purpose, which costs a point.

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. The description covers the gating step, the per-turn asking protocol, the handoff when can_answer_here is false, and the customer-link persistence — everything needed to invoke and use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents quote_id, chosen_quote_id and the locale language semantics. The description adds no further parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the questions the carrier asks in the customer's state (attestations and disclosures). It is distinguishable from answer_carrier_questions and next_question. The opening sentence, however, leans on unexplained context ('the three steps', 'to_final_quote.next_call') that an agent must already know, which blunts the clarity slightly.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition (after the customer has picked an estimate, when to_final_quote.next_call names it) and routes to the alternative (send answers with answer_carrier_questions). The preamble/ask_together turn protocol is spelled out, leaving no inference needed.

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