Health insurance premiums (KVG/LAMal)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: it names the official FOPH data source, says it matches priminfo.admin.ch, and stresses that every plan is basic insurance, preventing confusion with supplementary coverage. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes useful clarifications (language synonyms, basic-insurance-only scope, official source). It is slightly dense with parentheticals but every element earns its place with no filler.

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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the tool definition is largely self-sufficient. The description adds the data source and scope boundary. Minor details like data freshness or result-count behavior are not addressed, but they are not critical given the existing structured information.

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 the parameters are fully documented in structured form. The description restates the key filters (municipality, age, deductible) but adds no constraints or format details beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource: the cheapest mandatory basic health insurance premiums, scoped by municipality, age, and deductible, from official FOPH data. Though the verb is implicit, the action and domain are unambiguous and clearly distinct from the other Swiss-related tools in the sibling list.

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 states what the tool returns and clarifies that only basic insurance is included, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as swiss_rates or search_official_info, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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