Insuro

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

The annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful permission requirement ('Requires vault.write') and a domain boundary ('Insuro does not sell insurance or give financial advice'), but it does not describe what happens on duplicate creation or what the response looks like.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose and requirements. The vault.write and no-advice statements are useful but not strictly about invocation mechanics, so a small deduction is warranted.

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 9-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers required inputs, optional fields, permission requirements, and domain boundaries. The main gaps are explicit exclusion of ingest_document and return-value expectations, but these are not crippling for a reasonably typed 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 the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description repeats the required/optional split and mentions renewal/expiry as a pair, but it adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 names a specific action ('manually create') and a specific resource ('policy') in a specific location ('same table as the website form'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_policies or ingest_document. It is not a tautology and gives concrete operational scope.

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?

It clearly states the required inputs (insurer, type) and implies manual entry vs. document ingestion, but it never explicitly names alternatives or says when NOT to use this tool. The context is clear but exclusions are left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it returns a short answer plus which policy/document was used, includes a financial-advice disclaimer, never returns PDS text or document bodies, and requires vault.read. These go well beyond the annotations and set clear expectations for an agent.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then lists return contents, constraints, and the required permission in a logical order. Every sentence carries useful information.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what will be returned, what will never be returned, the required permission, and the relationship to list_policies. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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 schema already explains both parameters. The description's mention of 'policy_id hint from list_policies' overlaps with the schema's own 'from list_policies' text, adding little new semantic value beyond the word 'hint,' which is minor.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ask a natural-language coverage question about the connected vault.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_policies or ingest_document by framing it as a Q&A tool that returns answers rather than raw policy data or documents.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the user has a natural-language coverage question. It also hints at a workflow by mentioning policy_id comes from list_policies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for cases like listing policies or ingesting documents.

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

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

The annotations already communicate that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results share list_policies' summary fields and contain no document bodies. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or other edge -case behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and the additional context is adequate.

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 three concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: the purpose, the optional parameter/default, and the output shape comparison. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple, single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how the parameter behaves, and what the return content looks like. The return description relies on the sibling list_policies to define the exact summary fields, which is reasonable in a shared MCP context but not fully self-contained. Overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 fully describes the sole parameter, days, including type, range, and default value. The description repeats that days is optional and defaults to 90 without adding new semantics. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description adds no meaningful parameter insight 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as policies renewing within a look-ahead window, which is a specific, actionable scope. The reference to list_policies and the note about document bodies helps distingish it from the sibling list_policies and other tools. The name, title, and description align with no ambiguity.

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 intended use case is explicit: retrieve policies that renew within a configurable window, defaulting to 90 days. It also implies that document bodies are not included, which signals when list_policies may be more appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative for full-document retrievals, so it falls just short of perfect guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the tool returns and what it deliberately excludes, giving the agent a precise behavioral contract without contradicting any 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 first leads with the read-only nature and scope, the second crisply lists included and excluded return data. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains the return content, the exclusions, and the read-only nature, so an agent knows what to expect and what not to attempt to retrieve.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is complete, so there are no parameter semantics to add. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, the description appropriately focuses on output behavior rather than arguments.

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 identifies a specific resource ('connected Insuro vault') with a specific action ('Read-only summary') and enumerates the exact returned fields: private vault email, account email, policy count, and upcoming renewal dates. The explicit 'Does not return...' clause further distinguishes it from document- and policy-number-related tools.

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 conveys a clear scope — a high-level vault summary — which implies when an agent would want this rather than, say, list_policies or get_renewals. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage routing partly to inference.

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

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return behavior (structured summary only, never PDS text), the fallback path (inbox when no policy matches), the size limit, the storage/parse path parity, and the required permission. This is rich, actionable transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact: input format, storage parity, linking fallback, return type, size cap, and permission. There is no filler or repetition.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time concerns: required permission, size limit, input encoding, fallback behavior, and return type. The only notable gap is the exact shape/content of the structured summary, but the description makes clear that PDS text is not returned.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating the max decoded size, clarifying the accepted base64/data URL format, and tying policy_id behavior to automatic matching. It does not mention the blob alias or mime_type default, but the schema already covers those.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'File a policy PDF into the vault.' It clearly conveys what the tool does and adds useful scope limits like max size and summary-only output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling add_policy, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 gives clear operational context: use it for policy PDFs, send content_base64, respect the 4MB limit, and require vault.write. But it never explicitly says when not to use it or which sibling to prefer instead, so the usage guidance is implied rather than direct.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the output is summaries only, and it explicitly excludes PDS text, document bodies, notes, and coverage wording. This helps an agent set expectations and avoid misusing the tool for content retrieval.

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 two tight, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core function and return fields; the second lists exclusions. Every sentence adds value with no 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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it returns, what it omits, and its non-destructive nature. No critical operational details are 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since parameter semantics are trivially satisfied.

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: 'read-only summaries of policies in the connected vault,' and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also clarifies what it does not return, which distinguishes it from document- and coverage-oriented siblings like ask_coverage and ingest_document.

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 makes clear when this tool is appropriate: when the caller needs policy summaries and metadata, not full document text or coverage wording. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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