Quote fire insurance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real context: results come cheapest-first, the quote is computed as cost_per_m2 x area plus optional contents/perils, and no personal data is required. It does not describe what an individual offer entry contains, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs vendor restriction, prerequisite, pricing model and data-privacy notes into a short block with no filler sentences. The parenthetical asides are slightly dense but each carries information an agent needs.

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 10-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, vendor scope, pricing mechanics and privacy. What is missing is any sense of the returned offer structure or failure modes (e.g. the perils combination noted only in the schema), though annotations make the call itself safe.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the pricing formula tying cost_per_m2 to area_m2, and the note that contents and extra perils are optional add-ons. The province/city sourcing rule also reinforces how those two required strings must be obtained.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get live home fire insurance prices from every insurer'), states the ordering of results, and distinguishes this tool from the motor/health/travel quote siblings. The parenthetical 'BimeBazar only (Azki hides fire prices)' further separates it from the ins_azki_* family an agent might otherwise pick.

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 an explicit prerequisite sequence: 'Get province and city from ins_places first,' which routes the agent to the correct sibling before calling. It stops short of stating exclusions in the other direction (e.g. when a fire quote is not appropriate), but the use context is unambiguous.

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