classify_deal_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: uses rule-based classification first, then falls back to Claude API if the category is unknown. This gives the agent insight into the tool's decision process. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or error handling, which would elevate the score further.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief overview of the algorithm, and a clear Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (classification with fallback), the description provides a thorough overview of inputs and high-level output structure (ClassificationResult fields). It covers the essential mechanics but could improve by detailing edge cases or confidence score semantics. Still, it is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by providing explicit explanations for all 5 parameters in the Args section. It includes example values for merchant, enumerates valid category options, defines subcategory examples, specifies deal value in INR, and describes the optional user_history structure. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 'classify' and resource 'deal intent', and specifies it returns top insurance products. It also outlines the classification approach (rule-based with fallback to Claude API), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tool 'get_insurance_quote' which likely retrieves quotes rather than classifying intent.

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 a deal object is available and classification of intent into insurance products is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_insurance_quote'. No direct guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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