get_insurance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, rate limits, or the nature of the response. Minimal transparency.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently conveys the key information in two sentences. However, it could be slightly more structured or incorporate a brief example of usage.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what 'insurance pool data' includes or the format of the response. For a simple retrieval tool, more context on the returned data would complete the picture.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the 'coin' parameter's behavior: optional, returns all if empty. This adds significant value beyond the schema's minimal title and type.

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 'Get insurance pool data,' identifying the verb and resource. It mentions the optional coin parameter, distinguishing it from other get_ tools for insurance-specific data. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like get_coin_info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the coin parameter's optionality (returns all if empty), but does not provide context on which sibling tools might be more appropriate for other data needs.

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