estimate_benefit_cap_gap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Pure math, no external calls. Unauthenticated.', which tells the agent it's a safe, read-only operation with no side effects. This is sufficient for a simple computation, though it could mention error handling or output format.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose (verb+resource), and the second adds behavioral context. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description is clear for a simple math tool, but it lacks details about the return value or output format (no output schema exists). It also doesn't explain the calculation logic beyond 'gap between cap and target replacement'. For a tool with multiple parameters affecting the result, this leaves some ambiguity.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only references the overall purpose. Baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high and description adds no extra parameter context.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compute' and clearly identifies the resource: the income replacement gap between a group LTD benefit cap and a target replacement. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., compare_carriers, quote_request) which serve different purposes, and adds clarifying context like 'Pure math, no external calls.'

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 implicitly indicates when to use: for calculating the benefit cap gap. It mentions 'Pure math, no external calls. Unauthenticated.' which assures the agent it's a safe computation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives like sibling tools, so it's clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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