Given a fixed profile (age, gender, coverage, term), returns rates across all health classes (preferred, standard, standard_tobacco). Helps explain the cost impact of health rating or tobacco use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | Yes | Applicant age (20–65) | |
| term | Yes | Term length in years: 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 | |
| gender | Yes | ||
| coverage | Yes | Coverage amount in dollars (e.g. 500000 for $500K). Call list_options for valid values. |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: list_options provides metadata, query_rates calculates a specific premium, compare_terms shows term length variations, and compare_health_classes shows health class variations. An agent can easily distinguish between them based on their specific functions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_health_classes, compare_terms, list_options, query_rates) with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns. There are no deviations in naming style, making the set predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing term life insurance rate comparisons and queries. Each tool earns its place by covering essential aspects: metadata retrieval, specific queries, and comparative analyses across key parameters like term length and health class.
The tool surface is complete for the domain of term life insurance rate exploration. It covers metadata listing (list_options), specific premium calculation (query_rates), and comparative analyses for both term lengths and health classes, with no obvious gaps in the core workflow for rate comparison and decision-making.
