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

Annotations mark this as a non-readOnly, non-idempotent operation, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that credits are spent, that billing is for records returned and capped at the quote, that unused credits are released, that a quote is single-use, and that it expires in 10 minutes. These are exactly the mutation/cost behaviors an agent needs and that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the return shape, then the cost model, then the preconditions. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the payload usefully. Combined with the cost, single-use, and expiry details, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that it 'takes only a quote_id' and ties it to the quote step but adds no format or validation detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns investors and their properties from a quote, and specifies the grouping (by owner) plus the payload (portfolio size, purchases in last 12 months). It explicitly names the sibling that produces its input (quote_active_investor_search), so an agent can distinguish the run step from the quote 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 the prerequisite sibling (must follow quote_active_investor_search), a user precondition (must have agreed to the quoted cost), and lifecycle constraints (runs once, expires after 10 minutes). These conditions leave little to inference about when this tool is callable.

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