gap_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does contribute the key safety signal ('Read-only') plus a default flagging rule (>15% premium spike). It says nothing about scope of analysis (whole book vs. a policy), cost/latency, or what the caller receives, which matters for an analysis tool with no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence with the read-only safety property front-loaded and zero filler. It leans on jargon ('premium spikes vs prior term') that costs some clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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 an analytics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a decent inventory of what is reported but omits the analysis scope (which policies/assets are in scope) and any hint of result shape or size. Adequate as a pointer, thin for an agent deciding whether it has enough input to call 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 description coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by disclosing the default flag threshold of 15% for premium spikes, which the schema does not state, but it never names spike_threshold_pct, its units, or what happens at other values.

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 names a specific analysis operation (gap analysis) and enumerates its outputs: uncovered assets, duplicate coverage, and premium spikes versus prior term. That is far more informative than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling radar_report, which by name sounds like an adjacent analytics/reporting tool an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among policy_ingest, policy_list, policy_get, or radar_report. 'Read-only' implies it is safe to call speculatively, but the agent is left to infer that this is the analytical counterpart to the policy_* CRUD tools.

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