Look up insurance terms

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which lowers the disclosure burden. The description adds two useful behavioral notes beyond that: the glossary is limited to BimeBazar, and entries indicate where a number appears on the vehicle card. It says nothing about the result format or what happens when no term matches, which is a modest gap for a lookup tool with no output schema.

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 definition is three short sentences with the resource described first and the usage guidance second; no sentence is redundant. The standalone "BimeBazar only" line reads slightly like a fragment, but it usefully front-loads a hard constraint.

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 single optional string parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and complete safety annotations, the description supplies enough: what the tool returns, the domain restriction, and where it fits relative to the quote tools. Only the empty-result and matching behavior remain unstated.

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%, and the schema already explains that the query accepts part of a term or its explanation in Persian or Latin, with examples. The description mentions the term domain but adds no syntax, matching, or fallback behavior beyond what the schema already states, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Look up short explanations of insurance and car-card terms") and names concrete examples (VIN, chassis number, liability cover), so the agent knows exactly what kind of result to expect. It does not fully separate itself from content-oriented siblings such as ins_content or ins_azki_blog, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use it to explain a form field or a term appearing in a quote, and it names the related quote tools (ins_quote_third_party and others). It stops short of explicit exclusions, so there is no guidance on when a blog or content tool would be the better choice instead.

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