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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the agency/commission/broker-fee model and, importantly, the policy for answering fee questions ('saying Sigo charges nothing is false wherever it does charge'), which is real behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

The description is long and mixes distinct concerns — flow sequencing, licensing geography, organizational identity, and fee/commission policy — with the core purpose appearing late. Much of the fee-model prose is tangential to invoking this tool, so several sentences do not earn their place.

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 values need no explanation, and the description covers the who/what/when for this lookup. It is arguably over-complete on domain policy rather than under-complete, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter 'locale' is fully documented in the schema with its own rationale. The description adds no locale syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema; the 'state_is_decided_by' reference is about domain logic, not the parameter. 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 resource — 'The US states Sigo Seguros is licensed to sell car insurance in' — and distinguishes itself from the flow siblings (next_question, start_quote, get_quote). However, the purpose statement is buried after flow-ordering guidance rather than front-loaded, which slightly weakens immediate clarity.

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 context: 'Ask this before collecting details, so a customer elsewhere is not taken through a full quote,' which effectively states when to use it and the consequence of skipping it. There is implicit exclusion guidance (customers outside licensed states), though no explicit named alternative tool.

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