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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'free' and 'immutable', and lists return fields including expected_completion_seconds and expires_at, giving some sense of the quote's characteristics. However, it does not explain that this is only a quote and not the actual verification, nor does it address rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens if the quote expires. It also does not clarify the relationship between quote and purchase beyond 'use purchase_real_world_answer to buy it'. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and return fields, then providing a clear next-step instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description lists return fields but does not explain how the quote_id is used, the role of callback_url, or the semantics of limits and location beyond what the schema implies. It also doesn't clarify the verification_mode values or edge cases like expired quotes. While it provides a solid overview, it leaves critical operational details unresolved for an agent to call correctly.

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 40%, and the description does not compensate. The schema provides descriptions for request and verification_mode, but parameters like limits, location, and callback_url lack descriptions. The tool description does not explain these parameters, their constraints, or how they affect the quote. This is a significant gap given the low coverage and nested object complexity.

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 function: obtaining a free, immutable price quote for verifying a fact about a US local business. It specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('price quote'), and the scope (current fact about US local business). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like quote_real_world_action by focusing on 'answer' vs 'action'.

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 explicitly directs the user to purchase_real_world_answer for buying the quote, providing a clear next step. It implies this tool is for quoting, not for the actual verification result. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_verification_status or get_verification_result for checking status, which are siblings. The guidance is useful but could be more comprehensive.

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