Insurances

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: the dataset is small (~84 insurers) and sparse in doctor listings, which materially affects how an agent should use the result. It does not cover pagination or result ordering, but the output schema exists to carry return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the downstream consumer before the caveat. Every sentence carries information — the id linkage, the corpus size, and the doctor/center distinction — 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?

With rich annotations, a fully described single-parameter schema, and an output schema present, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the tool's role in the doctor-search workflow, the approximate result size, and the data-sparsity caveat. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% — the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a Persian example ('تامین' or 'آتیه'). The description adds no additional syntax or matching-semantics detail (e.g., substring vs prefix matching), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List basic and supplementary insurers') and goes further by naming the exact consumer of the returned ids: dt_search_doctors(insurance_ids=...). An agent can distinguish this from sibling lookup tools like dt_specialities or dt_cities purely from the description.

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?

Gives clear context for use: the returned ids feed dt_search_doctors, and it warns that 'few doctors list insurances, so an insurance filter narrows a search a lot' — an important behavioral caveat about filter aggressiveness. It also routes center insurance lookups to dt_center. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., when to prefer dt_specialities instead), so it falls just short of a 5.

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