Aster National Insurance Group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by enumerating exactly what the caller will get back (licence, lines/states, contact, hours) — useful since no output schema exists — and adds a sequencing behavior ('call this first'). No auth, caching, or rate-limit details are given, keeping it below 5.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource identity, then the content list, then the ordering call-to-action. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent needs: what the payload contains and that it should be fetched before other calls. Nothing material is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing in the schema or description to clarify further, and the description does not misleadingly imply any input is required.

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 concretely what the tool returns: licence details, lines and states written, contact info and hours. That content inventory, plus the imperative 'Call this first', separates it cleanly from the action-oriented siblings (check_appetite, request_quote, start_online_quote) without needing to open any schema.

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 first' is an explicit ordering directive that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to its siblings. There is no statement of when-not to use it or of prerequisites afterwards, so it stops short of the 5-level when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say whether the result is a boolean, what happens for unsupported lines, or whether the lookup is deterministic. It essentially restates the purpose rather than disclosing behavior.

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?

A single economical sentence with no wasted words, and the resource being checked (Aster, line, state) is front-loaded. The sentence-fragment construction is slightly awkward but costs nothing in length.

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 two-parameter, closed-world read with a fully documented schema, the description covers the core intent. However, with no output schema, it does not tell the agent what comes back (a yes/no flag, an appetite record, a reason string), which is the one meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the line enum documented and the state format ('Two-letter US state, like CA') spelled out in the schema. The description mirrors these inputs but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific check being performed (whether Aster National Insurance Group writes a given line in a given state), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like request_quote or agency_info. It is phrased as a fragment ('Whether...') rather than a verb+resource sentence, but the intent is 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?

There is no guidance about when to call this versus agency_info, request_quote, or start_online_quote. The agent must infer that this is a pre-quote eligibility check, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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 openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, and the description adds meaningful context: a licensed agent replies, the request is not a bound policy, and no price is promised. It does not cover timing, rate limits, or error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and recipient, then the required inputs, then the expectation-setting caveat. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return expectation and does so ('a licensed agent replies', 'not a bound policy'). For an 8-parameter open-world submission tool the essentials are covered, though it says nothing about turnaround or failure modes.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by framing how to elicit data conversationally and revealing the schema-level under-specification that an email OR phone is needed for contact, plus the consent gate before calling. That adds real meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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 ('Send a quote request to Aster National Insurance Group's licensed staff') and clarifies the recipient is a human agent. It implicitly separates itself from start_online_quote by being a request routed to staff rather than an online flow, but it does not name siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 context is implied ('get their OK before calling') and a prerequisite (consent) is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-start_online_quote or check_appetite guidance, nor any exclusions.

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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the link is for the client on the agency's own quoting platform, mildly useful context, but says nothing about auth needs, whether the link expires, or the return format.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but the noun-phrase structure ('The link where...') does not front-load the action, so it reads as a label rather than a usable instruction.

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 output schema, the description must explain what comes back; it implies a link but does not state whether it is a URL string or how it should be used. Given one parameter and annotations covering safety, it is minimally adequate but leaves the return behavior ambiguous.

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% and the single 'line' parameter has an enum with a description, so the schema fully carries parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 identifies the resource as a link for starting a quote with a named carrier on the agency's platform, but it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a clear action, and it never distinguishes this from the sibling request_quote. An agent can guess it returns a quoting URL but not with confidence.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus request_quote, check_appetite, or agency_info. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.

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