Hive Insurance

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It honestly discloses the business logic (bind, settlement, return value) and the pending backend status (Q3 2026). No contradictions.

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, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: action, settlement, return value, and caveat. No wasted 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return value, and a notable caveat (backend pending). It is fairly 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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Bind') and the resource ('previously quoted policy'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'quote_policy' which creates the quote, and 'claim_status' and 'parametric_trigger_check' which are unrelated.

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 mentions settlement methods and the backend pending status, indicating the tool is not yet functional. It implies use after 'quote_policy' but does not explicitly state when-not or alternatives.

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 verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. The description also discloses that the backend is pending, warning agents of incomplete functionality. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden and does so adequately.

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 with no fluff: first sentence states purpose and return states, second adds a backend note. Information is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 simple status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, possible states, and a notable caveat. It does not detail error conditions or return format, but those are reasonable omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage (parameter policy_id described as 'Policy ID from bind_policy'). The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 clearly states the action 'Check' and the resource 'status of a parametric insurance claim', and lists possible return states (pending/triggered/paid/disputed). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like bind_policy (creation) and parametric_trigger_check (trigger evaluation).

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 indicates when to use the tool (to check claim status) and provides a usage caveat ('Backend pending Q3 2026'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly to sibling tools like parametric_trigger_check.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. While it states the tool returns a boolean and the backend is pending, it does not clarify if the operation is read-only or if there are side effects. The lack of explicit behavioral disclosure leaves the agent with incomplete information.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the action and context, the second notes the return type and backend status. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simple boolean check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, return type, and backend readiness. However, it lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, which could be valuable for an agent, but overall it is mostly 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?

The input schema already provides a clear description of the only parameter 'oracle_event_hash' as a SHA-256 hash. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the trigger condition but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the specific resource 'parametric oracle event hash' with context 'trigger condition for automatic claim payout'. It also mentions the return type 'boolean', distinguishing it from siblings like 'bind_policy' and 'claim_status' which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for checking trigger conditions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The 'Backend pending (Q3 2026)' note hints at unavailability but does not offer clear usage context.

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?

No annotations provided; the description mentions 'Backend pending (Q3 2026)' but does not clarify what that means for behavior (e.g., whether it works, returns errors, or is a stub). Other behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects are not disclosed.

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 very concise with two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the core action and output.

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?

Given no output schema and pending backend status, the description is somewhat complete—states return type (premium estimate) but lacks explanation of error handling or what 'backend pending' implies for execution.

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 the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It reiterates parameter names but does not add new semantic details (e.g., format, constraints, or examples).

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 quotes a parametric insurance policy and returns a premium estimate, distinguishing it from siblings like bind_policy or claim_status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bind_policy, parametric_trigger_check). The context of backend pending is mentioned but not explained in terms of usage limitations.

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