search-insurances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (search) and the resource scope, but doesn't describe how results are returned, whether there's pagination, what authentication is needed, rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 reasonably concise with two parallel language versions, but the bilingual approach adds redundancy without adding information value. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence merely expands on the first without adding new guidance. Some waste exists in the repetition across languages.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, whether there are filters beyond the 'type' parameter, or any limitations. The description should provide more context about the search behavior and expected outputs given the lack of structured metadata.

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 already documents the single parameter. The description adds marginal value by listing example insurance types that align with the parameter description, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or search behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Search available insurance in Uruguay' with specific resource types listed (life, auto, home). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search-credit-cards' and 'search-loans' by focusing on insurance products. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search-guarantees' which might be related.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'search-insurances' versus other search tools like 'search-guarantees' or when insurance searching is appropriate versus loan/credit card tools. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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