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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the quote is free and immutable, and specifies the returned fields. It does not detail side effects (e.g., async behavior, callback requirements) but adequately conveys the read-only nature of obtaining a quote.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediate actionable follow-up (purchase_quote). No wasted words; structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool with 5 parameters including a nested location object and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to structure the request, required fields, or the meaning of verification_mode. The agent lacks essential context to construct a correct call.

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 provides no parameter guidance. It omits explanations for location, limits, callback_url, and verification_mode beyond what the schema already offers. This forces the agent to infer parameter usage, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 purpose: getting a free, immutable price quote for verifying a fact about a US local business. It also lists the output fields and directs to purchase_quote, distinguishing it from the verification/action siblings.

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 tells the agent to use purchase_quote to buy the quote, which is helpful. It also implies the context (verification) differentiates from quote_real_world_action, but does not explicitly contrast all siblings or state when not to use it. This is clear enough but lacks a full exclusion list.

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