Suggests which insurance coverages a business likely needs, ranked by importance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| vertical | No | ||
| naics_code | No | ||
| iso_gl_code | No | Confirmed ISO GL code. For NAICS 531110 it separates 1-4 family rentals (63010) from apartment buildings (60010). | |
| serves_food | No | ||
| has_vehicles | No | ||
| does_delivery | No | ||
| employee_count | No | ||
| serves_alcohol | No | ||
| business_description | Yes | ||
| handles_customer_data | No | ||
| has_physical_location | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / iso_gl_codeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Confirmed ISO GL code. For NAICS 531110 it separates 1-4 family rentals (63010) from apartment buildings (60010).",
+ "type": "string"
+}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 output is a ranked set of coverage suggestions, but it does not explain how suggestions are derived, what inputs are most important, whether external data is consulted, or what the response shape looks like.
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 filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though additional usage or parameter detail would improve it without making it verbose.
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 tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools to disambiguate, this description is incomplete. It does not explain required inputs, output format, or when to choose this versus sibling tools.
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 only 8%, and the description adds essentially no parameter meaning. It does not clarify the role of business_description, state, naics_code, vertical, or any of the boolean flags, leaving agents without the guidance needed to populate 12 parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('suggests') with a clear resource ('which insurance coverages a business likely needs') and adds the ranked-by-importance output property. This distinguishes it from siblings like classify_business, explain_coverage, and get_carrier_recommendations.
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 gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.
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.