核保预判：根据用户健康状况，评估各产品的可投保性（可正常投保/需加费除外/可能拒保）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | 年龄（影响可选产品范围） | |
| category | No | 想投保的险种（不传则评估医疗+重疾+意外+定寿） | |
| product_ids | No | 指定产品ID列表（不传则自动选取各险种Top产品评估） | |
| health_conditions | Yes | 健康状况列表，如["高血压2级","甲状腺结节3类","乙肝小三阳"] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists possible outcomes (normal, extra premium, rejection) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The behavior is minimally described.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and includes key scope details. Every part is necessary.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and outcome types. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or edge cases. It is minimally adequate but not complete.
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 does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the health_conditions input and outcome types. No additional parameter context is provided.
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 verb ('评估', assess) and resource ('各产品的可投保性', insurability of each product), with a specific input (health conditions) and possible outcomes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'recommend' and 'compare_products' by focusing on insurability assessment.
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 use when needing to evaluate insurability based on health, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'recommend' for general product suggestions, 'get_premium' for pricing). No when-not or prerequisite guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
