10Life Insurance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that later plan calls carry a purchase_url and that comparison output is not a personal recommendation or policy — useful framing for an agent handling user-facing advice.

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?

Four short sentences, with the operation front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately after. The disclaimer sentence is somewhat boilerplate but does carry compliance value, so nothing is clearly wasted.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response — and it does so by naming the five categories of values returned. It stops short of saying how the values are structured (grouped vs flat), which is the only remaining gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate. The enumerated return categories effectively serve as the parameter vocabulary the agent will later use with sibling tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and enumerates exactly what is returned: destinations, insurers, feature filters, score floors, sort orders. This clearly marks it as a vocabulary/metadata tool distinct from list_travel_plans, though the relationship to get_travel_plan is left unaddressed.

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?

'Call this before list_travel_plans' gives an explicit ordering and prerequisite, and the purchase_url sentence clarifies downstream context. There is no stated 'when-not' or exclusion, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description earns credit for adding domain behavior beyond them: a plan failing the filters is 'not found', the response includes purchase_url, and figures are labelled indicative — a real caveat about data trustworthiness. It stops short of describing error shapes or latency/freshness of pricing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then the failure condition, then the data caveat. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is padding.

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?

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description supplies exactly the missing behavioral layer: the filter-consistency requirement, the not-found outcome, and the indicative-figures caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly on a 20-parameter tool is absent.

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 baseline is 3; the description rises above that by defining the cross-call semantics of the filter parameters — they must be the same filters used on the list call, otherwise the plan is not found — which the schema alone does not convey. Remaining detail (callReason content, traveller counting, score thresholds) is fully handled by 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return one single-trip plan') and scopes it as singular against the list_travel_plans sibling, which is named explicitly. The mention of purchase_url and the filter-matching constraint further sharpens what the caller gets versus the list tool.

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?

Establishes the operating context clearly: this is the single-plan retrieval that shares filters with list_travel_plans, so an agent knows to call it with a planCode obtained from a prior list. It gives no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., calling it without a planCode from a prior comparison), which is why it falls short of 5.

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/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a hard cap of 5 results, no pagination, indicative figures, and that the product page overrides the returned price/cover. Those caveats materially change how an agent should present results. It stops short of saying whether an empty or filtered-out result set is a normal outcome.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return shape and result cap, followed by the two caveats that matter (no next page, indicative figures). Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or title.

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 19-parameter, nested-object tool with an output schema present, the description covers what matters an agent cannot get from structured fields: result count ceiling, absence of pagination, and data authority. Return-value detail is legitimately delegated to the output schema. Only minor gap is no explicit hand-off to get_travel_plan for full plan detail.

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 carries the parameter semantics and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only indirect value — mentioning the three comparison axes and the 5-result cap, which hints that the many boolean and premium filters are narrowing conditions. It does not explain interaction between filters or defaults beyond what the schema states.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Return at most 5 single-trip travel plans') plus the dimensions being compared (destination, trip length, traveller mix) and the fields returned. It is clearly a ranked list/comparison operation, though it never names the sibling get_travel_plan as the way to drill into one plan, so differentiation from siblings is inferred rather than stated.

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 is implied by constraints ('Must be single. Annual travel is rejected.', 'There is no next page') and by priorRecommendationId being scoped to 'when this call continues that comparison'. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_travel_plan or describe_travel_decoder, aside from an incidental pointer that regionCodes come from describe_travel_decoder.

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