Curagent Title Risk

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

Discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: the exact cost model (one of 3 free sandbox analyses, or 1 credit on paid tiers), that a single PDF closing package is automatically split into constituent instruments, that multi-document submissions trigger cross-document parcel/address/party contradiction checks, and that statute citations only appear for production-mature jurisdictions. The credit consumption is consistent with readOnlyHint=false rather than contradicting it.

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-loads what the tool does and returns before moving to input format, coverage scope, and billing. It is dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs; only the cost/jurisdiction details in the tail could be trimmed.

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, yet the description fully enumerates the return payload (risk score 0-100 with higher-is-safer semantics, level, findings with evidence and cures, Schedule B-I, jurisdictionApplied). Input format, geographic scope limits, prerequisites, and cost are all covered, leaving nothing material for an agent to guess.

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% for the single documentsBase64 parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: it lists the accepted document types (deed, title commitment, mortgage, closing disclosure, survey, payoff letter, HOA estoppel) and clarifies that multiple PDFs may be supplied and that a bundled package PDF is handled via splitting.

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 (analyzes US real estate title and closing documents) and enumerates the exact outputs: risk score and level, findings with verbatim evidence plus cure guidance, Schedule B-I requirements, and jurisdictionApplied. It is unmistakably distinct from the siblings check_coverage and get_credit_balance, which are meta/utility 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: call check_coverage to inspect per-state maturity before relying on statute citations, and call get_credit_balance first to confirm credits. It also explains that submitting multiple documents together unlocks cross-document checks. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the routing signals are clear.

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=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the call needs no API key, covers all 50 states plus DC, uses each state's own terminology, and that production-maturity jurisdictions include hand-verified statute citations — material for interpreting the result.

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 returned content before maturity and auth details. Some phrasing ('using each state's own terminology') leans promotional, but every sentence carries information an agent could act on, so size is appropriate.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so reasonably: covered jurisdictions, maturity levels, supported document types and pricing. A finer picture of the response shape is missing, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is absent.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, fetch-everything call, and there is nothing parameter-related left to clarify.

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: 'Returns what Curagent supports,' then enumerates the exact payload (jurisdictions, maturity, document types, pricing). This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools analyze_title_documents and get_credit_balance, so an agent can route 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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight/discovery call, but the description never explicitly says when to call it or when not to. It names no alternatives and gives no conditions beyond the note that no API key is needed, which is helpful but is not when-to-use guidance.

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 behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious business rules: the sandbox tier grants 3 total (non-recurring) analyses while paid tiers consume 1 credit per analysis, which materially affects how an agent interprets the returned balance.

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 short sentences with zero waste: purpose, when to call, and the credit/tier semantics are front-loaded in that order. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (balance and tier) plus the accounting model behind it. It stops short of describing response shape or formatting, but nothing required for 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 ('Returns the caller's remaining Curagent credit balance and tier'), which an agent can distinguish from analyze_title_documents and check_coverage 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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it ('Call this before analyzing to confirm available usage'), giving a clear triggering condition. It doesn't name a when-not or an alternative, but the timing guidance is unambiguous.

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