Insurance Premium Calculator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates premiums including pre-existing conditions, but doesn't describe what the calculation returns (e.g., a numeric value, structured data), error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

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 complexity of a premium calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a premium amount, breakdown details), how pre-existing conditions affect the calculation, or any behavioral aspects. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's output and usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'including pre-existing conditions', which aligns with one parameter but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'calculates' and the resource 'health insurance premium', specifying it includes pre-existing conditions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_basic_premium' or 'compare_policies', which likely have related but distinct purposes.

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 versus alternatives like 'calculate_basic_premium' or 'compare_policies'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose appropriately among siblings.

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