calculate_travel_insurance_estimate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Estimate' and 'Returns premium estimate', but does not clarify that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what assumptions the estimate is based on. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 short but contains inaccurate information (trip cost vs. coverage_level). Conciseness is not beneficial if it sacrifices accuracy. Structural front-loading is present but misleading.

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 simple calculator with output schema, the description should accurately list inputs. It fails by omitting 'coverage_level' and including a non-existent 'trip cost'. The mention of list_bundles is helpful but does not compensate for the input mismatch.

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?

The description mentions 'trip cost' as an input, but this parameter does not exist in the schema. The actual required parameter 'coverage_level' is not mentioned. This mismatch misleads the agent, adding negative value despite 100% schema coverage.

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 states it estimates travel insurance cost, which is clear. However, it mentions 'trip cost' as an input while the schema has 'coverage_level', causing confusion. It does not differentiate from a likely similar sibling tool 'calculate_travel_insurance'.

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 says 'Use for trip planning' and references list_bundles for related calculators, but provides no when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among siblings. An agent would not know when to choose this over 'calculate_travel_insurance'.

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