feegow_professional_insurances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only states the tool lists insurances, but does not mention if it is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. The lack of detail leaves the agent underinformed.

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 extremely short, consisting of one sentence and an endpoint annotation. While it is concise, it omits essential information. It is not verbose but also not well-structured for quick consumption by an AI agent.

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 2 parameters (one nested), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, pagination, or authentication. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters (only 'query' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, such as what 'profissional_id' expects or how 'query' is used. With only half the parameters described in the schema, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 that the tool lists the insurances accepted by a professional. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint, making the action and resource specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like feegow_list_insurances, which may have broader scope.

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 over alternatives, such as feegow_list_insurances for all insurances. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or use cases. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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