site

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose at least one meaningful behavior: 'Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults.' However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the output/return value contains.

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 first sentence contains a duplication ('calculator calculator') and a confusing run-on list that is not clearly structured. The second sentence is useful, but overall the description is not well-organized or front-loaded in a meaningful way.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the calculator returns or how the semicolon-listed items ('Solar panels installed', 'Home battery installed', etc.) relate to inputs or outputs. An agent would need schema details to invoke it correctly, and even then the tool's result format remains unclear.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description only adds a general note about defaults, which reinforces rather than extends parameter understanding. It does not define roles for the semicolon-listed items relative to the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run the Arizona solar cost calculator') that clearly identifies what the tool does. The redundant 'calculator calculator' is a minor quality issue, and the trailing semicolon list hints at outputs without explicit labeling, but the core purpose remains unambiguous.

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 explicit direction on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like calculator_describe or submit_enquiry. Usage is only implied through the tool's name and title, not stated in the description.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool returns descriptive information about inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. Its read-only nature is strongly implied by the title 'calculator_describe' and the content, making side effects unlikely. It does not explicitly say 'does not calculate,' but this is not misleading.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key content: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no fluff or repetition of the tool name; every phrase adds information.

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 no-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to know: what inputs are described, what outputs are returned, and what underlying material is included. It could mention output format or explicitly orient the agent to use this before 'calculate', but the core behavior is sufficiently complete.

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 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameters. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4; the description cannot add parameter-level detail, and none is needed.

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 specific: it states the tool provides the calculator's input parameters, outputs, assumptions, and supporting tables. This clearly identifies it as a documentation/describe tool and distinguishes it from the sibling 'calculate' tool, which presumably performs the calculation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate' or 'enquiry_describe'. It is only implied that this tool should be used when one wants to understand the calculator's structure and assumptions before calculating.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It explains that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the process is free—clarifying the underlying behavior of submit_enquiry. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens, which is valuable context.

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 with 'Read first,' immediately telling the agent how to use it. Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool states, what it does not do, and what it returns.

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 describe tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains its role, the scope of submit_enquiry, and the return contents. The main gap is that the description describes what submit_enquiry does rather than explicitly describing the format or mechanism of this tool's own output, though the title partly compensates.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to clarify. The description does not discuss parameters, but none exist, so this is a non-issue and the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 says this tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the Arizona Solar Cost Calculator, which makes clear it is an explanatory companion to the submission flow. It also differentiates itself by emphasizing this is 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote,' so an agent can distinguish it from submit_enquiry and calculate. It would be slightly stronger if it explicitly said 'this tool returns a description' as its primary verb.

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?

'Read first' directly signals that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry, giving clear contextual placement among siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'Read first' instruction plus the focus on explaining the enquiry process is enough to guide an agent.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes what the tool exposes (the list of fields and their metadata) and implicitly indicates a read-only listing behavior. It does not mention response format or any operational caveats, but nothing in the description suggests hidden side effects.

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 one information-dense sentence followed by a short, actionable workflow hint. Every clause adds value and the most important content is 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of covering what the tool returns and how to use those results. It could be slightly more explicit about the return shape, but for a parameterless listing tool the provided detail is sufficient for an agent to call and use 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing on the parameter side.

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 identifies a specific resource (Arizona Solar Cost Calculator enquiry fields) and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is clear enough to distinguish from submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like enquiry_describe or calculator_describe.

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 instructs the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which provides a concrete downstream usage. It does not state when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, but the intended workflow is clear.

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 thoroughly. It discloses the stateful two-step nature, the confirmation token, the email sending, and crucially that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. This is far beyond what the schema alone reveals.

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 detailed but well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded and each step explained in sequence. Every sentence adds essential information: the two-step protocol, the consent requirement, and the email/click behavior. Nothing feels redundant or off-topic.

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 (stateful two-step workflow, nested answers, no output schema), the description is complete: it defines step 1 outputs, step 2 prerequisites, the side effect (email with click link), and the exact consent phrasing. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool 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%, but the description still adds meaning: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields field keys, consent=true means agreement to the exact quoted line, and confirmation is the token from step 1. It clarifies the relationship between the parameters and the two-step flow that the schema alone does not convey.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry') on a specific resource (Arizona Solar Cost Calculator) and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The 'human providers' scope in the title further clarifies what this tool is for, making it distinct from sibling tools like calculate or enquiry_describe.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step usage workflow with clear sequencing: call once for validation/confirmation, then call again only after the person agrees. It also tells the agent what NOT to do ('NOT a purchase') and when consent is required, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use enquiry_fields to get keys'.

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