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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool polls until complete and shows quotes to the human, plus a sandbox warning, but omits critical details like timeout behavior, whether it blocks or returns intermediate status, error handling, and authentication requirements beyond the session token.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists optional parameters. It is slightly dense but well-structured, with every sentence contributing useful information, including the important sandbox warning.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, filtering, and a sandbox warning, but lacks operational details: how job_id is obtained, what 'show the human' entails (e.g., return format), and what happens if the job never completes. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 13%, but the description compensates by listing enum values for sort and cover, and naming the optional filters (partner, max_deductible, max_price, limit). It does not explain job_id or session_token fully, but the added semantics for most parameters are substantial.

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 clearly states the tool's core action: poll a quote job until complete and show quotes to the human. It distinguishes itself from job-creation tools by emphasizing polling and human selection, but does not explicitly name alternatives like moltbound_get_quotes or moltbound_quick_quote.

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?

Usage is implied: use after starting a quote job, with job_id and session_token. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus moltbound_get_quotes or moltbound_quick_quote, nor are there any when-not-to-use conditions.

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