DouxProcess: find a licensed insurance agency

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 safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool surfaces a builder link and is free, but it does not clarify whether anything is actually created or what the caller gets back.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the clipped phrasing ('what it makes') slightly obscures meaning.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the whole burden of explaining the result, and it only gestures at 'the builder link and what it makes'. It is minimally adequate but leaves the return content and its distinction from get_server unexplained.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No schema or description gap exists here.

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 resource (an MCP server for an insurance agency) but is ambiguous about the actual action – it reads as providing 'the builder link and what it makes' rather than performing a build, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_server or search_servers. An agent cannot tell whether this creates a server or just explains how.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite close siblings (get_server, search_servers, find_agencies). The agent is left to infer the trigger condition from the title alone.

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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: results come from the 'DouxProcess network', are sorted 'best match first', and include license number, lines, states, phone, hours and quote link.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and core filtering dimensions. It is a single dense sentence; the parenthetical line enumeration duplicates the schema enum and slightly bloats it, but overall it earns its words.

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 correctly compensates by listing the returned fields and the sort order, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide the call is worthwhile. Minor gaps around pagination or result-count limits, but overall sufficient for a two-parameter read tool.

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%, and both parameters (line enum, two-letter state) are self-documenting. The description repeats example line values already present in the enum and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('licensed insurance agencies') with clear scoping to a line of insurance and a US state. The purpose is immediately distinguishable from query-oriented siblings like search_servers or request_quote.

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 context 'for someone who wants an insurance quote' implies the intended scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no differentiation from the sibling request_quote, which is a natural alternative for the same user goal. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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/ non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the tool data reflects 'the last live check', signaling possible staleness, and it discloses the shape of the payload (tools, address, client add-instructions).

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope ('one listed server') leads and the payload contents follow. Nothing is redundant with the 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return-value explanation and does so adequately (tools, address, multi-client setup). Minor gap: no mention of behavior for an unknown/removed slug, but for a simple read tool this is close to 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% and the single slug parameter is documented in the schema as coming from search_servers. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup-failure semantics beyond what the schema already carries, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: fetch the complete record for a single server, and enumerates what 'everything' includes (tools from last live check, address, add-to-client instructions). It implicitly contrasts with search_servers by scoping to 'one listed server', but never names the discovery sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: 'one listed server' hints this is the detail lookup that follows a search, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative named. An agent can infer the flow but is not guided.

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 only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond that, disclosing post-call behavior ('a licensed agent replies', 'nothing is bound and no price is given', 'returns a reference number') and the consent precondition for contacting the agency. This is meaningful outcome information an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return behavior in the first two sentences, with the safety constraints after. The one-agency prohibition is restated twice ('never call this for every agency...' and 'If they ask to send to all of them, do not call it'), which is slight redundancy, though defensible given the criticality of the constraint.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the essential return ('a reference number') plus the downstream consequence of the request. For a 9-parameter, 6-required tool, it is nearly complete, though the 'business' parameter and failure/duplicate-submission behavior remain unaddressed.

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 only 44% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming the needed inputs (name, email or phone, line, state, coverage details) and clarifying the email-or-phone alternative, which the schema does not express since neither is marked required. It still says nothing about the 'business' parameter or why agency is bound to the find_agencies value beyond what the schema already 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 ('Send an insurance quote request') and scopes it precisely to 'the one agency the person chose by name from find_agencies', explicitly linking to the sibling tool that produces that value. An agent can immediately tell this apart from find_agencies or search_servers.

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?

Gives explicit when and when-not guidance: one agency per request, never batch, never pick an agency for the user. It even prescribes the fallback behavior ('show the list and ask which one agency they want') when the user asks to send to all, which is exactly the routing decision an agent needs.

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, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the free directory scope and that liveness reflects a check every 30 minutes. It doesn't disclose pagination, result limits, or match/sort 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?

Two sentences, zero waste; the filter dimensions are front-loaded followed by the result contract. Every clause earns its place.

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 five-param read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope, filters, and result fields including the liveness timestamp. It omits pagination and total-count behavior, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 60%; the line and audience enums have no schema descriptions, though the description's phrase 'by line of insurance, US state, who it is for, or words' maps the friable fields to their semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most parameter documentation.

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 (Search) and resource (free insurance MCP directory), and enumerates the filter dimensions (line, state, audience, words). The sibling set has no other search tool, so the purpose 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?

Implies usage context by naming the filter dimensions and describing result fields, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. It doesn't distinguish itself from find_agencies or route the agent between directory search and building a server. Clear context but no exclusions.

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