Returns ranked carrier recommendations with estimated premium ranges for a small commercial risk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| zip_code | No | ||
| naics_code | Yes | ||
| has_alcohol | No | ||
| iso_gl_code | No | ||
| has_delivery | No | ||
| prior_losses | No | ||
| vehicle_count | No | ||
| annual_revenue | Yes | ||
| employee_count | No | ||
| square_footage | No | ||
| desired_coverages | Yes | ||
| years_in_business | No | ||
| business_description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning data but does not explicitly state read-only status, side effects, permissions, or limitations. The lack of such details is a gap for a tool with no other transparency signals.
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 with no wasted words. It is concise and clear, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. The structure is appropriate for a simple message, but not for a tool of this complexity.
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 a complex schema with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only one line. It fails to explain input requirements, output format, or the meaning of 'small commercial risk', making it grossly incomplete for effective use.
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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions none of the 14 parameters, including required ones like naics_code, state, annual_revenue, and desired_coverages. The phrase 'small commercial risk' provides vague context but no meaningful parameter semantics.
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 ranked carrier recommendations with estimated premium ranges for a small commercial risk. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like suggest_coverages or classify_business.
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 tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
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 distinct purpose: classification, coverage suggestions, explanations, carrier recommendations, and agent handoff. There is no overlap between tools; even the recommendation-focused tools operate on different layers (coverage vs. carrier).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (classify_business, connect_with_agent, explain_coverage, get_carrier_recommendations, suggest_coverages). The naming is predictable and clearly indicates the action and target.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of guiding small businesses through insurance discovery and connection. Each tool serves a necessary step in the workflow, and none feel redundant or excessive.
The tool set covers the full journey from business classification to coverage suggestions, educational explanations, carrier recommendations, and human agent handoff. No obvious missing capabilities for the stated purpose of the server.