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

Annotations only flag it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world call; the description adds the economically critical behavior an agent cannot infer: credits are spent, the charge is capped at the quote, unused credits are released, the quote is single-use and time-boxed. It does not contradict 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and that it costs credits, then preconditions, then the expiry caveat, then the follow-up pointer. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 described, and the annotations carry the safety profile; the description fills the remaining gaps (cost, one-shot semantics, expiry, user-consent gate, follow-up tool) that an agent needs to invoke this safely.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that quote_id comes from quote_national_property_search. The description's 'takes only a quote_id' adds emphasis but no syntax, format, or constraint beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (returns property records for a quote) and ties itself directly to its sibling quote_national_property_search as the producer of the required input. It also distinguishes itself from get_property_detail by scope (record list vs full record), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 preconditions ('the user must have agreed to the quoted credit cost'), lifecycle constraints (runs once, expires after 10 minutes), and names the alternative to use for follow-up detail (get_property_detail). This is when-to-use, when-not, and alternative all in one compact block.

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