site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It hints at some comparison-acceptance concept but does not state whether the tool returns data, how it behaves, what 'accepted for comparison' means, or whether there are any limitations. This is insufficient for invoking the tool confidently.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, but the phrasing 'by what they are accepted for comparison' is awkward and unclear. It earns no points for wasted length, but the structure sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns or how the results are presented. It does not state the output format, what comparison results will look like, or what 'accepted for comparison' means. An agent still lacks enough context to predict the tool's behavior.

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 and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details because there are none to document.

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 is a noun phrase rather than a statement with a verb, so it does not clearly say what the tool does. It references 'criteria and any filters of the Business valuation report types,' but leaves the action ('compare'?) to be inferred from the tool name and title. This is closer to a vague restatement than a clear purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as compare_options or compare_table. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided, so an agent cannot confidently route between the compare-family tools.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that results can be optionally filtered by a tag value and lists included fields, but it leaves unclear what the tool returns, whether it performs a comparison, and how the filter behaves.

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 the phrasing is grammatically awkward and the core operation is missing. Brevity does not help when the single sentence still leaves the tool's purpose ambiguous.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only vague parameter documentation, so the description needs to explain return values, filtering semantics, and when to choose this over sibling tools. It covers almost none of these, leaving the context incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It only hints at filtering by 'a tag value', which likely maps to filterValue, but says nothing about filterKey, its possible values, or the relationship between the two parameters.

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 begins with 'The options', which essentially restates the title and does not use a clear verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It identifies a resource ('options in the Business valuation report types') and some fields, but an agent cannot be certain whether the tool returns options, compares them, or filters them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as compare_criteria, compare_table, or enquiry_describe. The only usage hint is the optional tag filter, but there is no exclusion or alternative-routing information.

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, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it does not state what the tool returns, whether it is a read-only operation, how missing or invalid options are handled, or what 'accepted for comparison' means in practice. It describes the table's content, not the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence and reasonably short, but it is syntactically awkward and the clause 'by what they are accepted for comparison' is vague and potentially confusing. It earns points for brevity but loses them for clarity.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return shape and default behavior when option is omitted. It does neither. An agent would still be uncertain what invoking this tool actually produces.

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 100% because the only parameter, option, has a description ('one option's name, else all'). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states the tool's subject matter — option values across criteria for Business valuation report types — but it is phrased as a noun phrase ('the full table') rather than an action an agent can invoke. It does not clearly distinguish itself from the sibling tools compare_criteria and compare_options, both of which likely cover similar ground.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use compare_table versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The phrase 'the full table' hints that this is the comprehensive view, but it never explicitly says 'use this for all options and criteria at once' or names any alternative.

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, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and succeeds: it states nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it lists the returned information—recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives the agent a clear safety and side-effect profile.

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, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and each clause adds a distinct fact: what the tool explains, what it avoids, its cost, and what it returns. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 parameterless informational tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and what its return value covers. Enough information is present for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details for the description to add, and no confusion is introduced.

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 a specific purpose: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and immediately differentiates it from a purchase, order, or guaranteed quote. The title reinforces that the result is an explanation of what the user gets, not the transaction itself, so the agent can distinguish enquiry_describe from submit_enquiry.

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 imperative 'Read first' tells the agent to consult this tool before engaging with submit_enquiry, and the description explicitly frames what this tool is not: a purchase, an order, a payment, or a guaranteed quote. It clearly signals that this tool provides pre-submission context rather than performing the submission.

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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is an informational field-listing tool and points submission activity to submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly confirm that this tool is read-only, has no side effects, or has no auth/operational constraints.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and output contents, and the second immediately connects the result to the relevant sibling tool.

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 zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned and how to use the results. It stops short of specifying the exact output shape, such as whether the result is an array of objects, but the listed attributes are sufficient for correct use.

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 there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds meaningful context by telling the agent that the field keys returned here are the exact keys to use when calling submit_enquiry.

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 clearly that the tool returns every field of the Accounting Firm Value enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It is specific about the resource and content, and it distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by noting that answers should be passed there keyed by field key.

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 provides clear usage context: obtain the field keys from this tool, then pass answers to submit_enquiry using those keys. It does not explicitly contrast this with tools like enquiry_describe or the compare tools, so alternative routing is left somewhat implicit.

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, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that step 1 is validation-only, that step 2 triggers an email with a link the person must click before any provider sees the data, that up to three advisers may receive contact details, and that the person is notified per firm and can stop further sharing. These are exactly the side effects and consent prerequisites an agent must know before writing.

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 critical framing ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded and the step sequence is easy to follow. It loses a point because the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim in the description and again in the schema's consent field, which is redundant bulk.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating what step 1 returns (a summary, the consent line, a confirmation token) and what step 2 produces. For a stateful, consent-gated submission tool, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-call meaning the schema cannot express: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 after approval. That relational context is genuinely 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Accounting Firm Value') and immediately negates the two most likely misclassifications ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is clearly distinguishable from the compare_* and enquiry_* siblings, which describe/compare rather than submit.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 only after the person agrees and only with the confirmation token. The conditional gating ('only if the person agrees') and the required human-visible actions are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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