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

Annotations already cover the read-only/no-destruction profile, so the explicit 'Read-only' adds nothing, but the description contributes real context beyond them: the figure is derived from sealed AI behaviour over a rolling 30 days, it explains blockers and remediation, and it discloses that results are shared with insurers (a visibility concern worth knowing). No return format details, but the safety and scope profile is clear.

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-loaded with the resource and scale, and every clause about the level criteria is substantive. It is dense and slightly run-on with parenthetical level definitions, but there is no filler sentence.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing the return: level, what is holding them back, how to fix it, and insurer sharing — all covered. With one trivial auth parameter and full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 single required parameter api_key has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so nothing compensates for the gap. The parameter is an obvious auth credential, which limits the harm, but the description does no work here.

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?

Names a specific resource (the customer's live Insurability Level, scale I-0 to I-4) and explains what each level means, so an agent knows exactly what it reads. It does not distinguish itself from sibling status tools such as sebbi_overview or sebbi_jugular_check, so an agent must infer which one it wants.

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 says what the tool returns but never states when to call it, when not to, or which sibling tool is the alternative. 'Read-only' signals safety but is not usage guidance; the agent is left to infer the trigger condition.

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