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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: unlicensed registrations still return a quote_id, missing facts trigger a targeted server request, and no PII is required. This is valuable non-contradictory context that helps an agent anticipate edge cases.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second sets the privacy boundary, and the third explains fallback and interactive behavior. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return behavior, and it does: it says prices are returned when licensed, and a quote_id is returned otherwise. It also describes the interaction when facts are missing. However, it does not detail the structure of the price response, possible error cases, or how the quote_id should be used, leaving minor gaps for an agent.

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 carries a heavy burden. It compensates by framing all inputs as 'rating facts only' and explicitly listing what is not required (name, phone, email, SSN, licence number), which prevents parameter misuse. It does not explain individual fields like vehicle_make_model or annual_mileage formatting, so the compensation is partial.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return indicative auto insurance prices from multiple carriers,' and adds a key scope condition, 'where this entity is licensed to show them.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like check_eligibility and request_agent_contact by focusing on price quotes rather than eligibility status or agent contact routing.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: for indicative quotes using rating facts only, and it explains the fallback behavior when the entity is not licensed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria, so the guidance stops short of full when-to-use versus when-not-to-use.

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