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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, authentication needs, rate limits). It only states the action and lists parameters, failing to inform the agent about what happens upon invocation.

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 concise with a front-loaded purpose clear line followed by a structured list of parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, but it omits critical context for completeness.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and full parameter coverage. The tool likely requires more guidance (e.g., returns quote ID, sends email) that is missing.

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 provides brief explanations for 4 of 7 parameters (firm_slug, prospect_email, scope_summary, budget_band), including enum values for budget_band. However, three parameters (prospect_org, prospect_name, requested_window) are not mentioned, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Request a quote from a Compliance Registry firm.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it implicitly from sibling tools like claim_listing or find_compliance_firm.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using request_quote over request_introduction or other siblings.

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