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.