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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the comparison fields, the side-by-side presentation, and the 'cheapest or soonest' computation. No contradiction with annotations, and the behavioral context is helpful for a read-only tool.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates relevant details. No fluff; every phrase earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description fully captures the tool's behavior and output. It explains what is compared and highlights the cheapest/soonest, making it complete for an agent to invoke.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter briefToken with 'From request_quotes,' which provides sufficient meaning. The description doesn't add parameter details, but given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'See every business's answer to a brief side by side' and enumerates specific comparison dimensions (price, coverage, lead time, rating, payment protection) and highlights 'cheapest or soonest.' This distinguishes it from siblings like request_quotes and accept_quote.

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 usage after a brief has quotes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The parameter description 'From request_quotes' provides a prerequisite hint, but the tool description itself lacks explicit usage guidance or exclusions.

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