statefarm_get_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose output behavior ('Returns estimated premium ranges, coverage options, and next steps'), and 'next steps to complete the quote' implies the tool commits to nothing. However, it does not state whether calling it initiates contact with State Farm, collects/stores personal data, or has any side effects — meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether invocation is safe.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the supported scope, and the delivered output/next steps. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, with zero filler or redundancy.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does meaningful work: it lists all supported insurance types, signals the location requirement implicitly via zip code, and states the return shape, which partially substitutes for the missing output schema. The schema carries parameter semantics well. It falls short of 5 because, with annotations entirely absent, it could also disclose quote validity, non-binding guarantees, or data-handling behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's insurance-type list weakly reinforces the insurance_type enum, but it adds no format, unit, conditionality, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already provides via its prefixed per-parameter descriptions (e.g., '(Home) Home square footage', '(Life) Applicant age').

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get an insurance quote from State Farm') and enumerates the full scope of supported insurance types ('auto, home, life, and renters'). The stated return content ('estimated premium ranges, coverage options, and next steps') makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings such as statefarm_file_claim, statefarm_policy_details, or statefarm_payment.

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?

Usage context is implied — the agent can infer this tool is for obtaining a new quote rather than managing an existing policy — but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given. Notably, statefarm_bundle_recommendations is a plausible alternative an agent might confuse with this tool, yet the description never routes between them.

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