statefarm_digital_id_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (policy details, vehicle info, coverage period, link) but is a read operation by nature. It doesn't reveal that it may invoke email sending, what happens if an invalid policy number is provided, whether it performs authentication, or whether the output varies by format. Given no annotations exist, this is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and adds expected output fields plus an optional link. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a parameter that triggers email sending (email_address format), the description should clarify behavioral nuances like when email is actually sent, whether downloads require authentication, or what display returns. It covers the basics but misses important context about the 'email' and 'download_link' formats. A 3 reflects a functional but incomplete description.

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 coverage is 100% – each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value by explaining what the ID card information includes and that a download/share link may be provided, which clarifies the return context. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for parameters themselves, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function ('Retrieve a digital insurance ID card for a State Farm auto policy') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on ID card retrieval, not quotes, claims, policies, or roadside assistance.

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 when the user needs a digital ID card for a State Farm auto policy, which is clear from the context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like statefarm_policy_details or statefarm_find_agent, which are also policy-related. No exclusion conditions or alternatives are named.

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