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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it operates with only 2-3 fields, surfaces hard stops, and blocks known-decline scenarios before dispatching adapters. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: what it is, when to use it, and what behavior it provides. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and detailed parameter documentation, the description is mostly complete for correct invocation. The only minor gap is not explicitly linking this check to the next step with the sibling quote tools, though 'FIRST' and 'before adapter dispatch' strongly imply the flow.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters with concrete examples for policy_type and fields_json. The description's references to 'partial data' and '2-3 fields' add mild context but no new parameter-level semantic information beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a 'pre-flight eligibility check' that 'surfaces hard stops' from partial data. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling quote-retrieval tools, which focus on getting auto or home quotes rather than checking eligibility first.

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 gives explicit placement: 'Use this FIRST in any intake flow' and explains it works before full data collection and before adapter dispatch. It stops short of naming the sibling tools as the follow-up step or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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