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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses valuable behavior: no PII is required, unlicensed requests still produce a quote_id for licensed agents, and the server asks only for missing facts. These details meaningfully shape agent expectations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three concise sentence, each adding necessary context: the main behavior, the PII limitation, and the missing-facts behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

For a read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: licensing, required input type, and the fallback registration behavior. It could be slightly richer about the exact response shape beyond the quote_id, but the remaining ambiguity is minor.

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 only 20%, so the description should compensate. It does add useful high-level meaning by explaining that only rating facts are accepted and PII must be excluded. However, it does not elaborate on ambiguous parameters like prior_continuous or the coverage enum values, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 indicative auto insurance prices from multiple carriers. It also clarifies the licensing condition, which distinguishes this from related tools like check_eligibility or request_agent_contact. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

The description clearly establishes when this tool is appropriate: when indicative pricing is needed and only rating facts are available. It also explains the unlicensed-carrier fallback behavior, which helps an agent decide what to do with the result. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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