community_pool_calculator

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

The description declares it as a 'DEMO educational tool — not a licensed insurance product,' which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation to warn about non-production use. It also provides parallel examples, adding context about its educational nature.

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 one sentence of core purpose, followed by two sentences of useful context and a warning. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parallel examples could be trimmed without losing key information.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, educational nature, and regulatory context. With an output schema available, it does not need to detail return values. It is sufficiently complete for a calculation tool with well-documented parameters.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it scores the baseline of 3.

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 'Calculate parameters for a community group (chama) pooled insurance arrangement.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of Western and Kenya parallels helps distinguish it from sibling tools like premium_estimate or compare_microinsurance, which focus on different aspects.

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 provides cultural context but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not specify scenarios where other tools are more appropriate or caution against misuse.

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