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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes further by disclosing the concrete consequence of each action: acceptance binds the person to work at that total, decline is irreversible, and changes_requested requires notes. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and consequences, with the acceptance procedure last. No filler; every clause carries distinct meaning.

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 destructive, open-world action tool with an output schema present, the description covers consequences and the accept workflow well, so return values need no explanation. The decline path prerequisites (personConfirmed) are only stated in the schema, leaving a minor gap.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description usefully compensates: it explains the 'response' enum semantics, ties confirmedTotal to the total shown from get_my_quote, and notes that notes is needed for changes_requested. It leaves personConfirmed and selectedOptions unaddressed, but the schema partially covers personConfirmed.

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 (answer/respond) and resource (a Kolmo quote), plus the effect of each response value. It cleanly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_my_quote, which only reads the quote, by naming it as the upstream step.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance per response value ('accepted' binds, 'declined' is final, 'changes_requested' keeps open and needs notes) and lays out the alternative workflow ('show the person scope, options and total from get_my_quote'). Nothing material is left to inference.

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