compare_insurance_plans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It describes what the tool does (analyzes, calculates, identifies) and the scope (6 channels), but does not disclose return format, error handling, rate limits, or required permissions. The description provides adequate insight into functionality but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the imperative purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states usage, the second enumerates channels, and the third describes outcomes. No redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'identifies optimal plan' but does not specify the output format or whether it provides a comparison list. Parameter descriptions are complete in schema, but the tool's overall behavior could be more fully specified.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain how parameters map to the 6 channels or provide usage examples. The schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 tool's purpose: to compare health insurance plans across 6 specific channels. It uses a strong verb ('compare') and explicitly lists the value proposition (calculates cost-of-care scenarios, identifies optimal plan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_eligibility and generate_application_draft.

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 instructs 'ALWAYS use this tool' for comparing health plans, indicating its primary use case. It implies usage context by listing the channels and scenarios. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names suggest distinct purposes.

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