claims_card_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it's a summary and cheaper, but does not mention that it is read-only, whether it validates input, or error handling. Lack of side-effect disclosure is a 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?

Two concise sentences. First introduces the tool's output and lists key fields. Second provides a cost comparison. No wasted words.

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 only one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and output sufficiently. It lists the output fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gaps in error/validation behavior.

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% with a brief description of the 'document' parameter. The tool description adds that it expects a 'Claims Decision Card JSON', which clarifies the schema's 'parsed object'. No additional semantic value beyond schema.

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 provides a structured summary of an AI Claims Decision Card, listing specific fields. It differentiates from full card reading, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like decision_card_inspect.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like claims_card_validate or claims_card_chain. The phrase 'cheaper than reading the full card' implies a use case, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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