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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It explains the deterministic integer-only model, how inputs affect the quote, and that the returned quote_hash enables independent verification. It also explicitly states the tool is pure and never mutates state. No contradictions.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: first explains the core action and influencing factors, second adds technical and behavioral context. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence provides value.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the model, hash verification, and side-effect guarantee. It lacks discussion of error conditions or edge cases, but for a pricing tool this is sufficient. The output schema likely covers return fields.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that attestations, deliveries, completed bonds lower the rate, and slashes raise or decline. However, it does not mention all parameters (e.g., coverage_minor, duration_days, slashed_minor) or their roles beyond the stated effects, leaving gaps.

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 uses specific verbs ('Underwrite', 'deterministic actuarial premium quote') and clearly identifies the resource (surety bond). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it is a pure pricing function that never mutates bond state.

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 implies when to use this tool (before committing to a bond) by mentioning 'deterministic quote' and 'never mutates bond state', but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it. Context from sibling names like 'post_bond' and 'activate_bond' helps but is not stated.

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