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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'view'. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'active' policies, but does not disclose return format, session requirements beyond the schema, or how this differs from similar tools.

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 that is direct and free of filler. It efficiently conveys the core function with zero 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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it fails to clarify the relationship to the tool name 'claim_insurance' and how it differs from 'view_insurance', leaving a gap in contextual completeness.

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% with the only parameter 'session_id' already described clearly. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself, but this is acceptable since the schema fully documents it. No extra param context is needed beyond what is provided.

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 function with a specific verb ('view') and resource ('active insurance policies'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'view_insurance' and the tool name 'claim_insurance' suggests an active claim action, creating a potential mismatch.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'view_insurance' or 'buy_insurance'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this tool is preferred.

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