propose_unpaid_insurance

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'consented data' but does not explain the tool's side effects, whether it is read-only, how the OAuth token is used, or what happens with the data. The description is too vague about the operational behavior and limitations.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and the result. It is well-front-loaded with 'Assess tenant default risk' and contains no unnecessary words or filler, making it efficiently concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey enough context for correct invocation. It explains the high-level function but does not specify the return format or any edge cases (e.g., invalid consent, failure modes). For a moderately complex tool with three required parameters, this is only minimally adequate.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. While names like 'monthly_rent' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'tenant_consent_token' and 'oauth_token' are not fully explained. The description mentions 'consented data' but does not clarify the role of each parameter, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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: 'Assess tenant default risk from consented data and return unpaid-rent insurance quotes.' It uses specific verbs ('assess', 'return') and identifies the resource (tenant default risk, insurance quotes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_parties, generate_lease, notify_tax_authority, and get_rent_status, which serve different functions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to assess a tenant's default risk and obtain insurance quotes. It implies the need for consented data, which suggests a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear, though no exclusions are given.

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