SimplyGlobal Visitor Insurance

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context: it returns links only, it never touches private orders or personal records, and the policy_specimen service exists only for WorldTrips Atlas Travel. It does not mention behavior on a missing or unresolvable plan, which is the one identifiable gap.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its three services before the lookup mechanics and the exclusion list. The first sentence is dense with em-dash clauses, but every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 is a simple read-only link resolver with a full input schema, an output schema, and complete annotations. The description covers the lookup paths, the service scope, the one carrier-specific exception, and the negative intents, so nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that plan_id alone resolves both carrier and plan name, and that carrier and plan_name form an alternative lookup path, plus the service-specific Atlas Travel constraint that the enum alone does not convey.

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 the insurer's official public pages for a visitor insurance plan') and enumerates the exact three services it resolves, including the WorldTrips Atlas Travel restriction on policy specimens. An agent can distinguish this from search_visitor_insurance_plans and get_visitor_insurance_plan_details without opening a 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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to locate the plan (plan_id from search_visitor_insurance_plans, or carrier plus plan_name) and explicitly rules out adjacent intents: filing a claim, checking claim status, judging coverage or eligibility, confirming network participation, and looking up personal records. That is a strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use contract.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail: the default deductible fallback ($250 when offered, else lowest) and that omitting deductible_usd changes which option the benefits and brochure link describe. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but this is a read-only comparison tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return contents and parameter guidance. It is dense but each clause carries information; the deductible sentence is long but necessary. No filler or repetition.

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 4-parameter tool with a nested trip object and an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, the key deductible coupling, and section narrowing. The main minor gap is that it doesn't restate trip-object constraints, which the schema handles.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond it: the interaction between deductible_usd and the returned benefits/link, the default fallback deductible, and that sections narrow the default set of all five sections. It does not elaborate on the nested trip fields, which the schema already covers well.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Compare visitor insurance plan benefits side by side for up to 4 plan_ids'. It explicitly names the sibling tool that produces the inputs (search_visitor_insurance_plans) and states what is returned (benefit rows, highlights, brochure link), which distinguishes it from the search and link tools.

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?

It states the prerequisite (plan_ids must come from search_visitor_insurance_plans), the constraint (up to 4), and the condition for narrowing results (sections input). It also gives explicit guidance on passing deductible_usd to match the search option and what happens if omitted.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered — yet the description goes well beyond them. It enumerates the four outcome states (answer text, navigate_only with a link, unavailable for retired paths, stale for stale sources) and adds a non-obvious data caveat that the prices-by-age guide never returns price numbers, which an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 front-loaded with the read purpose, then packs outcome states, the optional question mode, and the price caveat into tight sentences. The state enumeration sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct operational value, with no filler or restated title text.

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations and a present output schema, the description carries only the burden of distinguishing behaviors, which it largely does by covering gating states and the price exclusion. What is missing is guidance on what the agent should do after receiving navigate_only, stale, or unavailable — whether to surface the link, escalate, or refetch later.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'exact FAQ question text' semantics of 'question' and the canonical_path example. The description restates the question-parameter behavior without adding format, matching rules, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Read approved answer text for one published SimplyGlobal guide by canonical_path') and inventories exactly what comes back: review state, review and source-check dates, and citations. This is clearly separable from search_insurance_guides, which yields paths, and from the plan-detail siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage signals, notably the optional 'question' mode for reading a single FAQ entry instead of the whole guide, and it bounds expectations by saying only licensed-reviewed guides return text. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent to call search_insurance_guides first to obtain a canonical_path, and it never names a sibling as an alternative for whole-guide browsing versus single-answer lookup.

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 (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the verification gate against a pinned carrier rate card, the full set of non-success statuses (needs_clarification, unsupported_composition, stale, price_discrepancy, unavailable), the USD-only base-premium scope with taxes and fees excluded, and the fact that it never purchases or accepts payment details. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before quoting a price to a user.

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 action and scope, then the verification gate, then returns and failure modes, then the liability caveat — a logical order with no filler sentences. The status list and the caveat clause are dense, but each clause carries distinct information.

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 eight parameters, three enums, a nested traveler object, and an output schema; despite that complexity the description covers the verification contract, failure paths, pricing scope, and non-purchase guarantee, with return details safely delegated to the output schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the tool correctly appears 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (travelers composition, age semantics, deductible/coverage enums, date constraints, ISO country fields) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the scoping context (family, non-U.S. citizens, base premium in USD) rather than new per-parameter syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (Price) and a tightly scoped resource (WorldTrips Atlas Travel family visitor insurance for non-U.S. citizens traveling to the U.S.), and the 'verified base premium' framing separates it from the generic sibling search_visitor_insurance_plans. An agent can tell exactly which tool produces a verified family 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 description states the gating condition for a successful call (pinned rate card intact and website family total matches to the cent) and enumerates the fallback statuses, which tells an agent when the tool will succeed and what to expect otherwise. It does not explicitly route the agent to or away from sibling tools such as search_visitor_insurance_plans, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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 establish this as a safe, idempotent read, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the per-result fields (canonical link, review state, source-check date), the meaning of answer_eligible, and the hard constraint that non-eligible results must not be quoted. That quoting rule is a behavioral constraint an agent could not derive from annotations or schema, and the no-match fallback behavior is also stated.

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 dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The pagination clause in the final sentence largely restates schema defaults, which is the only slight redundancy, but overall the structure is efficient and readable.

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 four-parameter search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is complete: purpose, result-field semantics, the quoting constraint, pagination, and empty-result behavior are all covered. An agent could invoke it correctly and interpret the response without consulting anything else.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description only echoes that results are paginated via page and page_size without adding format or boundary detail. It does frame 'query' as the traveler's question, which is mild reinforcement of existing schema text rather than new meaning — baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find published SimplyGlobal visitor-insurance guides and FAQs.' That cleanly separates it from the plan-search siblings (search_visitor_insurance_plans, search_family_insurance_plans), though it never explicitly names read_insurance_guide, the natural follow-up tool, so the search-vs-read boundary is left implicit.

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?

It gives a clear use context ('for a traveler's question') and specifies the no-match behavior, which is useful. But there is no explicit when-not or routing guidance: nothing says 'use read_insurance_guide to fetch the full document' or 'use search_visitor_insurance_plans for pricing,' so the agent must infer sibling selection from resource names 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?

The annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: what the result set contains (plan family, price, coverage maximum, deductible, compare_page_url, exact option), that non-matching plans are demoted into not_offered rather than dropped, and that page_default_differs flags a mismatch between the compare page's default card and the recommended option. It does not mention result-set size limits or latency, which keeps it off 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a compact block on return contents and edge-case flags; there is essentially no filler. The second sentence is long and clause-heavy, stacking three separate behaviors (returned fields, not_offered fallback, page_default_differs), which slightly hurts scanability but not correctness.

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 present, the description does not need to enumerate return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining burden is the soft-filter behavior — which is addressed via not_offered and page_default_differs. Minor gaps remain around how many plan families are returned and whether prices are per-trip totals, but nothing critical to calling it correctly 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 high (75%) with well-documented parameters, so the schema carries the basics. The description still adds real meaning about filter semantics: deductible_usd and coverage_maximum_usd are soft filters whose misses land in not_offered with their available options, which tells an agent how to interpret a sparse result rather than assuming no plans exist. The nested trip object and plan_type are left entirely to 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search SimplyGlobal visitor insurance plans and prices') and constrains scope to 'one traveler', which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_family_insurance_plans and from get_visitor_insurance_plan_details (which returns details rather than search results). An agent can pick this tool over its siblings without opening 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of requested coverage maximum/deductible implies the optional filters are meant to be passed, and the phrase 'one traveler' hints at the family alternative, but the description never explicitly names when to use this tool versus get_visitor_insurance_plan_details or search_family_insurance_plans. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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