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.