Curagent Title Risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it thoroughly. It discloses the return components (risk score range and direction, findings with evidence and cures, Schedule B-I extraction), input handling (PDFs, single closing package splitting), cross-document checks, cost/credit implications, and the Florida-only scope. Nothing contradicts the absent 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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and output, then adding input requirements, scope restrictions, and prerequisites. Every sentence provides useful operational information; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 the tool's complexity, the lack of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, what inputs it accepts, what its limitations are, what it costs, and which sibling tools to call first. An agent has enough context to decide whether and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although the schema's description of documentsBase64 already explains it as one or more base64 PDF strings, the tool description adds meaningful semantic detail: accepted document types, the ability to include a full closing package, that the package will be split into constituent instruments, and that multiple documents enable cross-document contradiction checks. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Analyzes'), a clear resource ('Florida real estate title documents'), and a distinct deliverable ('structured risk report' with risk score, findings, and Schedule B-I requirements). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling tools check_coverage and get_credit_balance by describing a document-analysis operation rather than a scope check or balance lookup.

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 gives explicit conditions on when to use the tool: Florida properties only, with prerequisites stated directly ('call check_coverage first to confirm scope, and get_credit_balance to confirm available credits'). It also explains when multi-document submission is beneficial, giving an agent concrete decision guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It transparently notes that the tool returns information and highlights a critical limitation (Florida only), which goes beyond a generic read-only hint. It does not explicitly state side effects, but as a pure query tool, the absence of side effects is implied.

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 three sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a direct usage instruction and a key scope detail. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema and zero parameters, the description fully explains what the tool returns, when to call it, and the current geographic limitation. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly within the context of the sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details needed; the description focuses on the output contents, which aligns with the empty schema.

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 it returns supported US states, document types, and pricing, which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from the sibling tools analyze_title_documents and get_credit_balance, as it answers coverage questions rather than performing analysis or checking credits.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Call this before analyzing to confirm the property's state is in scope,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also gives a concrete example of current Florida-only support, helping the agent decide if this tool applies.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details beyond a simple balance lookup: sandbox tier has a total of 3 free analyses not recurring, and paid tiers consume 1 credit per analysis. This prevents the agent from assuming the balance refreshes monthly and clarifies the relationship between credits and analyses.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core result (balance and tier), immediately states when to call it, and then adds only the necessary pricing nuance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to understand what this tool does and when to invoke it. It explains the return content, the trigger condition, and the credit accounting rules that the agent needs to interpret the result correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaningful parameter surface and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about how credits are consumed even though it doesn't need to document specific inputs.

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 tool's function: returning the caller's remaining Curagent credit balance and tier. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like analyze_title_documents and check_coverage, as it is a read-only balance lookup rather than an analysis or coverage check.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call this before analyzing to confirm available usage, which is clear situational guidance. It does not discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the tool's unique purpose this is sufficient.

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