get_specialty_guide

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is 'Unauthenticated' (implying a read-only, public operation) and describes the return format. While it could mention potential error cases (e.g., invalid profession), it adequately discloses key behavioral traits beyond what the schema provides.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word adds value, with no repetition or unnecessary details.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the input purpose, the output type (structured metadata plus link), and authentication status. However, it omits details about error handling (e.g., what happens if profession is not found) and does not specify whether the guide is versioned or time-sensitive.

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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%, including a helpful description with examples. The tool's description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve', the resource 'Seaworthy Insurance Agency coverage guide', and specifies it's for a specific profession or medical specialty. It also indicates what is returned (structured metadata plus link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_carriers or estimate_benefit_cap_gap.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for related tasks. Usage is only implied by the function's name and description.

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