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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the overnight-keeping rule for determining state, the agency/carrier commission model, the one-time broker fee that is absent in Florida, and the instruction never to claim Sigo charges nothing. That is real operational guidance an agent could not derive from structured fields.

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 meandering, opening with flow ordering rather than the tool's purpose, and spends several sentences on the agency/commission/broker-fee business model that is tangential to listing states. Some content earns its place, but the structure buries the lead and the length is not proportionate to a one-parameter list tool.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the when/why and the key state-determination caveat thoroughly. It is complete for calling the tool correctly, though the core purpose statement is under-emphasized and some included material belongs to a customer-question-answering concern rather than this 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% and the sole parameter (locale) has a full enum and a detailed schema description covering language selection and consequences. The tool description adds nothing about locale, so per the baseline for full coverage this sits at 3 — the schema does all the work.

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 does state the resource clearly — '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 actual purpose is buried after an opening sentence about flow ordering, and it conflates two jobs: listing states and explaining 'what Sigo is'. An agent can identify it, but not from a clean leading statement.

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 explicitly says 'Before the flow, optional' and 'Ask this before collecting details, so a customer elsewhere is not taken through a full quote', which gives placement and rationale against alternatives. It also warns that state is decided by where the car is kept overnight, not residence — a concrete usage condition. No explicit 'when not to use', but the context and ordering are clear.

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