Hive Insurance Broker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context: real third-party listings, Hive is broker-only, and cost-of-coverage availability depends on upstream. It does not mention side effects (though listing is read-only), authentication, or rate limits, but covers data sourcing and potential incompleteness.

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 core action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose and providers, the second clarifies the return fields and the broker's role. No redundant content.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it identifies providers, return fields, and a caveat about data availability. It could mention pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for a list of products.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns (provider, type, capacity, cost-of-coverage) and notes that cost-of-coverage may be missing if upstream doesn't expose it. This adds meaning beyond the empty 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 tool lists all available coverage products across specific providers. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (coverage products) and names the providers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like insurance_quote or insurance_today, though the listing scope implies a distinction.

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 this tool is for listing all products, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over insurance_quote or insurance_today. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, only an implied 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally: it discloses that Hive forwards the request, returns responses verbatim, and does NOT bind coverage, accept premium, or take custody. This gives complete transparency about side effects and limitations.

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 only two sentences, with the core action front-loaded. It contains zero fluff, and every clause adds essential information about routing behavior and operational constraints.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how it interacts with underwriters, what it returns, and what it explicitly does not do. This is enough to safely invoke the tool without missing critical behavioral expectations.

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 100% coverage, including the provider field's description that omission routes to all four providers. The description delegates parameter semantics to the schema and adds no additional meaning, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Route a quote request to one or all underwriters.' It identifies the specific verb, resource, and target, distinguishing it from siblings like insurance_products (product listing) and insurance_today (current policy info).

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 establishes when to use the tool—for routing a quote request—and clarifies that provider can be omitted to send to all. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusion 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rolling-window behavior and that it returns counts and top providers, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, whether authentication is required, or how data is aggregated beyond 'capacity'. This is adequate for a seemingly simple analytics tool but lacks explicit safety/behavioral statements.

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 concise and front-loaded, opening with the core concept '24-hour rollup' and then specifying the included data points in a second sentence. No unnecessary words or repetition; it earns every word.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: time window, what is counted, and what is returned. However, it leaves some ambiguity around 'top providers by capacity' (e.g., capacity in what unit? top N?) and the exact format of the return value. This is slightly incomplete but acceptable for a straightforward summary tool.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed as it operates on a fixed rolling window, providing sufficient context for a parameter-free tool.

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's purpose: a 24-hour rollup providing total listing count and top providers by capacity, plus request and quote counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like insurance_products and insurance_quote, which are about specific product/quote retrieval rather than aggregate metrics.

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 a daily summary/rollup based on the phrase '24-hour rollup' and 'rolling window', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It could benefit from a note like 'Use for daily performance metrics' to clarify its role relative to siblings.

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