Quote motorcycle third-party insurance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are live quotes from every insurer, ordered cheapest first, priced in Toman for the whole term, and require no personal data.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the outcome (live prices, cheapest first), then scope constraints, then units/ordering. No filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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 an 11-parameter quote tool with no output schema, the description covers currency, term, ordering and data requirements, and hints at the response via 'financial_coverages in the answer'. It could say more about what a quote response contains (insurer, premium breakdown), but the essential call-time information is present.

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 91%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: previous_policy='yes' pulls in previous_company, the two policy dates and the two discounts, and previous_company must come from ins_insurers. It also notes financial_coverage is taken from the answer, which explains how to source that value.

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 ('Get live motorcycle third-party insurance prices from every insurer') and adds the output ordering ('cheapest first'). It also scopes the class explicitly ('The motorcycle class is asked directly'), which separates it from ins_vehicles and from the generic ins_quote_third_party route.

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 real selection context: 'BimeBazar only', that ins_vehicles is not needed, that ins_insurers supplies previous_company, and that no personal data is required. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not comparison against the sibling ins_quote_third_party, which is the closest alternative.

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