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

Discloses that this is a simulation ('Demo tool', 'simulated', 'No real carrier is involved and no payment is accepted'), which supplements the readOnlyHint:false annotation by clarifying there are no real-world side effects. Adds meaningful context about the non-production nature beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, return values are listed, and the demo qualifier is stated upfront. Every sentence 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (quote_id, carrier, premium, trigger threshold, payout amount, coverage terms). It also explains the demo nature and the next step (bind_policy). It is reasonably complete, though it could briefly mention the revenue_band parameter or any validation rules, but these are in the schema.

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 parameter details are already documented. The description reinforces that it takes a specific peril and coverage period but adds no additional syntactic or formatting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 explicitly that it requests a simulated parametric quote for a peril and coverage period, and lists the return payload (quote_id, carrier, premium, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by marking itself as a demo tool and mentioning the follow-up to bind_policy, making its role clear.

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?

Clearly frames the tool as a demo and provides a workflow direction ('Pass the quote_id to the demo bind_policy tool'). This implies when to use it (before binding) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like assess_weather_risk or check_trigger. Good context but no explicit exclusion.

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