calculate_travel_insurance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. It merely states it calculates and returns values, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 description is two sentences: the first clearly states purpose and inputs, the second mentions return fields and a pointer to related tools. No redundant information, highly front-loaded.

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?

Given that an output schema is implied (description mentions return fields), the description provides enough context to use the tool. It could be improved by noting that it is a read-only calculation, but overall it is complete for a simple estimation tool.

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 thoroughly describes each parameter with enums and descriptions. The description adds no significant extra meaning about parameters beyond listing them.

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 clearly states the verb 'Calculate', the resource 'travel insurance cost', and the inputs (destination, duration, age, activities). It also mentions the return fields and directs to a related sibling tool, making its purpose very specific.

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?

The description implies usage for travel insurance estimation but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It only briefly references list_bundles for related calculators, providing minimal differentiation context.

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