compare_insurers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool compares insurers but doesn't explain what the comparison entails (e.g., returns a list, a table, or a summary), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance considerations like rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in German that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential 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?

Given the complexity (5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, error conditions, or how the comparison is performed. For a tool that likely returns detailed comparative data, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify how parameters interact or affect the comparison). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Vergleicht mehrere Versicherer für ein bestimmtes Profil' clearly states the action (compare) and resource (insurers) with a specific scope (for a given profile). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_cheapest_insurers' (which likely returns cheapest options rather than comparisons) and 'get_price_history' (which focuses on historical data). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what aspects are compared (e.g., prices, coverage), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 'get_cheapest_insurers' or 'get_price_history'. It doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection. The only implied usage is comparing insurers for a profile, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.

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