get_insurance_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned (counts, revenue rollup) but does not mention read-only nature, side effects, or permissions. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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 with three distinct parts: purpose, return content, and usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No unnecessary text.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context on what the tool returns. However, it fails to explain the parameter's role (filtering by facility vs. all facilities), leaving a gap in completeness.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (facility_id) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, even though 'for the facility' implies scoping. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low 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 description clearly states it provides insurance coverage summary for the facility, detailing return content (counts, revenue rollup) and giving example use cases. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_insurance_activity by focusing on summary vs. activity.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' examples ('how many tenants have insurance?', 'insurance revenue MTD') provide clear guidance on when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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