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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the catalogue is in trade names, matching is approximate so an empty list is meaningful, and the result must be verified rather than guessed. It does not discuss rate limits or return shape, but the output schema covers the latter.

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 before the how-to, and every clause is actionable. Minor redundancy between 'turns the customer's words into the occupation code' and 'Turns what the customer said they do into the carrier's own occupation codes' costs it the top mark.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, workflow position, and empty-result handling, leaving only minor gaps such as whether multiple matches can be returned. Adequate for a two-parameter lookup.

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 `said` and `locale` are already fully documented, including the enum and locale's effect on notice language. The description reinforces the 'customer's own words' intent but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific transformation (customer's spoken words → carrier occupation code) and names the sibling it feeds (`start_quote` / the `occupation` field). An agent can distinguish it from next_question, carrier_questions, and get_quote without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-call ('Call it before sending `occupation` on a driver'), why the lookup is necessary ('the code is never something to guess at'), and what to do on an empty result ('ask them another way rather than settle for the nearest thing'). It also locates itself in the flow ('outside the three steps').

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