Insurance Premium Calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'compares premium' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what the output format is (e.g., list, table), or any constraints (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste—front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose. Every word earns 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs comparison (implying potential complexity), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, behavioral constraints, and how it differs from siblings, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 both parameters (age, coverage_amount). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are used for comparison, matching the baseline when 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 action ('compares premium') and scope ('for all policy types'), with specific inputs ('given age and coverage'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by covering multiple policy types rather than specific ones like 'basic' or 'health', though it doesn't explicitly name the siblings.

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 when needing premium comparisons across policy types, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling tools (calculate_basic_premium, calculate_health_premium) or any exclusions. Context is clear but lacks alternative guidance.

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