Страховые полисы

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the important 'active/current' scoping and the inclusion of amounts and terms, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether expired policies are shown or how results are ordered.

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 entire description is a single, compact sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the resource ('active insurance policies') and immediately gives useful distinctions: policy types and returned data.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations declaring read-only and idempotent behavior, the description covers all required guidance. It explicitly states the scope and key output fields, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the input surface. The description adds useful content-level context (amounts and terms) beyond the empty parameter schema, which is sufficient for this parameterless tool.

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 names the resource (active insurance policies: OSAGO/KASCO/travel) and the data returned (amounts and periods), making the tool's scope recognizable. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', so it relies on the tool name to imply the read action.

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 use for querying current insurance policies, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or what user questions map to this tool. There are no close insurance-specific siblings, so no explicit routing is needed, but the guidance is still more implied than stated.

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