premium_estimate

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it is a 'demo estimation — not a binding quote', clarifying the non-binding nature. 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 concise (4 sentences) with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds coverage scope, a parallel for context, and a critical caveat. Every sentence adds value.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown) and full schema parameter coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, scope, and limitations. It could mention the fallback defaults (e.g., county) but the schema already handles that.

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 schema itself explains all parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only reasserts the scope of insurance types.

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?

Description clearly states 'Estimate monthly insurance premium for a Kenya individual', specifying verb (estimate) and resource (insurance premium). It lists covered insurance types (health, life, crop, device) and distinguishes itself from siblings via the 'Western parallel' and 'demo estimation' note.

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 implies usage for demo estimation and lists covered types, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares with sibling tools. No direct mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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