Quote third-party car insurance

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive safety, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is bought or reserved' and 'no personal data needed'. It adds genuinely new behavioral facts: prices are live, denominated in Toman for the whole term, and returned cheapest-first, plus a privacy note about plate/national ID being prefills only. It does not discuss freshness, caching or failure modes across 17 insurers.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome and ordering, then prerequisites, then a short safety clause. Wording is dense but each sentence carries information; the parenthetical about Azki and the prefill explanation are slightly tangential but justify their place as a routing and privacy rationale.

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 14-parameter, read-only quote tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the call sequence, currency and term semantics, result ordering and a clear statement that no purchase occurs. The schema covers all field-level detail, and the schema's reference to 'financial_coverages in the answer' signals the response shape adequately.

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 each of the 14 parameters, including the enum and discount ranges, is documented inline. The description adds only the sourcing hint for brand/model and previous_company values, which the schema already states, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 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 ('Get live third-party car insurance prices') plus scope ('from every insurer BimeBazar sells') and ordering ('cheapest first'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ins_quote_car_body and ins_quote_motorcycle without opening any schema.

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 explicit prerequisites: call ins_vehicles first for brand/model values and ins_insurers for a previous_company, establishing call order. It also explains why BimeBazar rather than Azki (Azki gates prices behind a phone number). It stops short of naming when to pick a sibling quote tool instead, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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