ParaSure

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

Discloses real data, not sandbox, pricing ($0.10 USDC/call), data source (5 years Open-Meteo), consistent with readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Single paragraph with key info front-loaded, but could be more structured; no waste, but not perfectly concise.

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?

Covers purpose, inputs, outputs, data source, and usage order; lacks explicit location scope or error conditions, but adequate for scope.

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%, but description adds context that business_type determines relevant perils, above baseline.

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?

Clearly states it is the entry point for agent flows, returns weather risk score and perils, distinguishing itself from quote and policy tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Always call this first before requesting a quote' and describes when to use it as first step, with cost and data authenticity.

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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a write operation. The description adds behavioral context: 'activates the policy and begins trigger monitoring', explaining the effect beyond what annotations provide. 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?

The description is very concise: four short sentences that front-load the action, then explain effects, prerequisites, and returns. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return values (policy_id, dates, trigger details, confirmation) and the key prerequisite. It is mostly complete, though it could mention that payment_method 'sandbox: no charge' is already in schema description.

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% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds context for 'quote_id' (stating its source), but other parameters are adequately described in the schema. No significant additional meaning is added.

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 ('Accept a quote and initiate a bind') and the resource (policy). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'activate the policy and begin trigger monitoring', which is unique among sibling tools like 'get_parametric_quote' and 'get_policy_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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to 'Pass quote_id from get_parametric_quote', providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, such as when a quote is not ready.

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?

Discloses returns (observed value vs threshold, met status, data source) and notes production vs sandbox behavior, adding context beyond readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Three sentences: front-loaded purpose, return details, and context. 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 one-param tool, covers purpose, return values, data sources, and sandbox note. No output schema needed as description covers it.

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% and parameter description is clear; description does not add further semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Clearly states the tool checks whether a bound policy's parametric trigger is met, distinguishing it from siblings like bind_policy (binding) and assess_weather_risk (general risk assessment).

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?

Implies use after bind_policy via the policy_id parameter, but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives. The sibling context helps, but no direct exclusion of invalid policies.

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?

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, and the description confirms it's a quote request (non-read). It adds context about what is returned (quote_id, carrier, etc.) but does not disclose potential side effects, auth needs, or rate limits beyond what is implied.

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, each earning its place. The first states purpose and outputs; the second provides a critical usage link to bind_policy. 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?

Given the complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, returns, and next step. It could mention the optional revenue_band field or explain trigger thresholds, but it is fairly complete for a quoting 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it merely summarizes the return fields, not the parameters. No additional semantics are provided for parameters.

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 'Request' and the resource 'parametric insurance quote for a specific peril and coverage period.' It lists the returned data and distinguishes from sibling tools like bind_policy by noting the next step.

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 explicitly says to pass the quote_id to bind_policy to activate, indicating when to use this tool and the subsequent action. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with siblings like assess_weather_risk.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the exact statuses and data returned (client details, trigger threshold, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 sentence, concisely stating the purpose and listing returned data. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no superfluous 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?

Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully explains what is returned, including specific statuses and data fields. No additional context is necessary for correct invocation.

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% (the only parameter, policy_id, is fully described in the schema). The description does not add any new information about the parameter, so baseline 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 specifies exactly what the tool does: get the full current status of a bound parametric policy, listing possible statuses and the data returned. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_trigger or bind_policy.

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?

While it implies use after binding a policy, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools (e.g., check_trigger) or when not to use it. The description lacks exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint. Description adds 'Free — no payment required,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, and explains what the tool returns.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, free cost, and usage guidance. No fluff, each sentence earns its place.

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, description lists returned fields (carrier name, perils, regions, products). Sufficient for a list-discovery tool, though output structure details missing.

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; schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields baseline 4, and description adds no extra param info which is unnecessary.

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?

Description clearly states it lists all carriers with specific details (name, perils, regions, products). Distinct from sibling tools like get_parametric_quote or bind_policy, filling a discovery role.

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?

Explicitly says to use before calling get_parametric_quote, providing clear context. No mention of when not to use, but the sibling list and tool name imply it's for initial exploration.

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