Get Document Request Guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one useful trait: for US_* policy types it returns an English schedule-of-benefits checklist. It does not state read-only/no-side-effects or any auth or rate-limit context, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core return contents and then the US_* variant. Efficient, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be explained, and the US_* conditional is covered. However, with 0% schema coverage and zero annotations, the unexplained parameters and missing usage/precondition context leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints that policy_type drives output language/format for US_* values. product_name is never explained, and the enum values are uninterpreted, leaving most parameter meaning to be inferred.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns a list of securities/terms to request from the insurer, request wording, and official request channels. This is distinguishable from the user/profile/policy siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus other guide-like tools (e.g. get_onboarding_guide) or what prerequisites exist. The only implicit condition is the US_* policy-type switch, which is about output rather than when-to-use.

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