is_search_policies

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

Lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result ordering, error handling, or what 'key details' includes. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to cover these aspects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key action and search criteria. Efficiently communicates purpose and output, but misses practical details like default values and result format, which could be added without much verbosity.

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 4 parameters including enums and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention default behaviors (product_type defaults to 'all', status to 'active'), pagination via limit, or what constitutes 'key details' in the response. This could lead to incorrect assumptions.

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?

Adds context beyond the schema by explaining that query can be policy number or policyholder name, and that product_type and status are search criteria. However, the limit parameter is not described, and with only 25% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches iSuite insurance policies by multiple criteria (policyholder name, policy number, product type, status) and returns matching policies. Differentiates from siblings like is_get_policy (single fetch) and is_search_claims (different resource).

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?

Implies usage for finding policies by search criteria, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like is_get_policy for a known policy ID. No 'when-not' or exclusion guidance provided.

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