CoverSavvy Term Life Insurance Rates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns rates' (implying a read-only operation) and lists the specific health classes, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. The behavior is straightforward, but the description adds limited context beyond what the tool name implies.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second sentence explains the practical benefit. No redundant information or filler words are present, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the return value looks like. It says 'returns rates across all health classes' but does not specify the format (e.g., list of objects, mapping of class to rate) or whether comparisons are shown. The description covers the inputs and the general outcome, but for an agent to invoke it correctly, more detail about the result would be helpful.

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 75% with three of four parameters (age, term, coverage) described in the schema; gender is only an enum without a description. The tool description refers to the parameters collectively as a 'fixed profile' but adds no individual parameter details or examples beyond the schema. It does not compensate for the missing gender description, but overall the schema is fairly self-explanatory.

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 tool's function: given a fixed profile, it returns rates for all health classes, distinguishing it from siblings like compare_terms (which likely compares term lengths) and query_rates (which may return a single rate). The specific mention of health classes and purpose (cost impact of health rating/tobacco use) makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context by specifying a fixed profile and the intent to compare health classes, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No mention of 'use this when you need to compare health classes' or 'instead of query_rates'. The sibling tools exist but are not referenced, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns rates across term lengths for a fixed profile, implying a read-only operation. However, it omits details such as the return format (e.g., per $1,000 coverage, monthly vs annual rates) and whether all term lengths are always included. This is adequate but not rich.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the precise inputs and outputs, and the second gives a practical use case. There is no filler or redundant information; every word serves a purpose.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a common use case. It lacks explicit return-format details, which would be helpful for an agent to know what to expect, and it does not address edge cases like invalid inputs. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for tool selection but has minor gaps.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for 75% of parameters, including valid values for health_class and the note to call list_options for coverage. The description adds little beyond restating the parameter list, though it emphasizes the 'fixed profile' requirement. Given high schema coverage, a score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Given a fixed profile ... returns rates across all available term lengths.' It explicitly lists the term lengths (10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years) and provides a concrete use case ('should I get a 20 or 30 year term?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_health_classes and query_rates by focusing specifically on term-length comparison.

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 context on when to use the tool: when comparing term lengths for a fixed profile. The example question 'should I get a 20 or 30 year term?' makes this practical. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the specific phrasing and sibling tool names imply a distinct role.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, and the enumeration of value categories adds useful context. But it does not disclose potential side effects, costs, or failure modes. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and key output. It wastes no words and is perfectly scannable.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the return content and enumerates the relevant categories. Given the sibling tools (comparison/query), this discovery tool is fully placed in context.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so by the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on inputs, but it usefully clarifies that the output enumerates valid values for future parameters across the listed categories.

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 ('Returns') and a clear resource ('all valid parameter values'), and enumerates the categories (ages, coverages, terms, genders, health classes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_health_classes and query_rates by framing this as the prerequisite discovery 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?

The phrase 'Call this first' provides explicit when-to-use guidance, making clear this is the initial discovery step. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it lacks the full exclusionary guidance required for 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the output and required parameters. It does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, error handling, or any side effects, leaving the agent to infer safety from the verb 'Returns'.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second reinforces a key constraint. Every word earns its place 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 simple query tool with well-documented parameters in the schema and a clear output statement in the description, the description is mostly complete. It lacks context about when to use it vs siblings, but that is covered under usage guidelines. The output schema is absent, but the description explicitly states what the tool returns.

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 high (80%) and includes detailed descriptions for age, term, coverage, and health_class, with enums for gender and health_class. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, except reiterating that all parameters are required, which is already in the required list.

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 tool returns monthly and annual premiums for a specific profile. The verb 'Returns' is specific, and the resource 'premium' is distinct from sibling tools like compare_health_classes or list_options, making its purpose immediately 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling comparison tools. It only notes that all parameters are required, which is already in the schema, but does not indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred or alternatives should be used.

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