claims_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers: the Returns section specifies exactly what the agent will receive — claim count, total and average building payments, and loss year range — and the read-only aggregation nature is unmistakable. It stops short of describing edge cases such as empty scopes or invalid state codes, but the core observable behavior is well disclosed.

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 opens with a one-sentence summary and then uses compact Args/Returns sections, with every line earning its place. The Returns section is justified because there is no output schema to carry that information.

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?

For a one-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return content — the essentials an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. The only minor gaps are unspecified edge-case behavior (empty results, invalid state input) and exact field names in the return payload.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully compensates by documenting the state parameter's format (two-letter US state code), filtering semantics, and the default behavior when omitted (all states). For the tool's sole parameter, this is complete semantic coverage.

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 opening line, 'Get aggregate statistics across claims, optionally filtered to one state,' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. The phrase 'aggregate statistics' clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_claim and search_claims, which operate on individual claim records.

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 usage — an agent can infer it should pick this tool when summary numbers across claims are needed rather than individual records. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when not to use it, leaving routing to inference from the word 'aggregate.'

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