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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an empty list is a legitimate outcome and should prompt re-asking rather than a nearest-match guess, which shapes agent policy on error handling. It does not discuss latency, rate limits, or how many candidate entries typically come back.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's role, then when to call it, then the failure case — good ordering with no filler. Slight redundancy between the opening sentence and 'Turns what the customer said they do into the carrier's own occupation codes', which restates the same mapping twice.

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 an output schema present, return structure need not be described, and the description covers the one output condition that matters behaviorally (empty list). Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema and safety annotations, an agent has what it needs; only edge behavior like multiple equally-plausible matches goes unaddressed.

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%, including enum values and a detailed rationale for `locale`, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail for `said` or `locale` beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a precise verb+resource relationship: converts the customer's description of their job into the carrier's occupation code that start_quote consumes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the main flow ('Second-round helper, outside the three steps') and from the sibling start_quote, so an agent can place it without opening any schema.

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?

States the trigger ('Call it before sending `occupation` on a driver'), the reason guessing fails (catalogue is in trade names, customers answer in their own), and the fallback when the result is empty ('ask them another way rather than settle for the nearest thing'). When-to-use, why, and failure handling are all explicit.

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