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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so usefully by disclosing that the e-mail acts as a verification credential paired with the reference and that contact details are omitted from the response, which is a privacy trait not present in the structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the prerequisites and the privacy caveat. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears some responsibility for describing the return value. It says only what is not returned (no contact details) and never indicates what the status actually looks like or what states are possible, which is a meaningful gap for a status-lookup tool.

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 coverage is 67% and the description fills the main gap: the 'email' property has no schema description, and the description clarifies it must be the address used for the original request, i.e., a matching credential rather than an arbitrary value. The optional 'locale' parameter is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the status of an existing quote request. The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from the create_quote_request sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 context of use is clear: look up the state of a request that has already been submitted, and the description states the two prerequisites (reference plus the e-mail used for the request). It does not name alternative tools or say what to do when the caller lacks the reference, but no real alternative exists among the siblings.

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