compare_carriers

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the input schema: it states the tool is unaunthenticated and carrier-neutral (does not declare a winner). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose pagination, error handling, or what happens when no carriers match, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, listing carriers, noting optional narrowing, explaining neutrality, and indicating auth status. No extraneous words; it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, the carriers involved, optional filtering, neutrality, and authentication. It is complete enough for a simple comparison tool, though additional details about the structure of the comparison or when to use it vs. siblings would elevate it further.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds 'narrow the result' which clarifies the role of the parameters but does not provide new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the added value is marginal.

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 tool returns a structured comparison of the five major individual disability carriers, listing them by name. It also mentions optional narrowing by profession and priority, and contrasts with sibling tools by specifying carrier-neutral framing. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like estimate_benefit_cap_gap or quote_request.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions carrier-neutral framing and unaunthenticated access, it does not indicate scenarios where siblings like quote_request or estimate_benefit_cap_gap would be more appropriate. A user is left to infer usage from the tool's purpose alone.

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