site

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only/calculation-only, what the returned structure looks like, or whether there are any 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 short and front-loaded, but it contains a redundant phrase ('calculator calculator') and the semicolon-separated list reads awkwardly. Every item is relevant, but the wording is not polished enough for a higher score.

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 calculation tool with seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable high-level picture and notes default fallback behavior. It is missing explicit output-format or return-shape information, so it is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters well. The description adds only the general fallback behavior and high-level calculation categories, which is useful but does not materially improve parameter-level understanding 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 states a specific action ('Run the Boat value calculator') and lists the calculation aspects it covers: engine-hour adjustment, condition adjustment, indicative value, and percentage of guide value. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calculator_describe, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when to use the tool ('Run the calculator') but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives such as calculator_describe or submit_enquiry. There are no conditions, exclusions, or hints about which sibling serves a different purpose.

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 convey that the tool provides explanatory information about inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, which implies a non-mutating, informational operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed or that the result is descriptive text.

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 core content: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no redundant wording 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?

For a zero-parameter, informational description tool, the description covers the essential content areas sufficiently. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that it is a read-only/descriptive tool and by contrasting it with 'calculate', but given the low complexity, the description is nearly sufficient.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description's reference to calculator inputs and outputs is about the described calculator, not about this tool's own parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and no additional parameter explanation 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 clearly states that the tool describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, and the title reinforces that it explains what the calculator computes. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'calculate' tool, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool instead of the sibling 'calculate' tool or the other enquiry-related tools. An agent would have to infer from the name that this is a descriptive/informational call rather than an actual calculation.

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 it delivers useful behavioral context: nothing is bought, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it lists what the tool returns. It does not explicitly state that the tool itself is read-only, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly' strongly imply that.

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 every sentence adds meaningful guidance about what the tool does and returns. There is no filler or repetition.

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 descriptive tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains the subject, the implications, and the returned content. It could be slightly more explicit about being a read-only informational tool, but overall it is complete enough.

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 the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for this case.

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 ('states plainly') and a specific resource ('what submit_enquiry does'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly focusing on submit_enquiry rather than calculate 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?

'Read first' is a clear usage signal: the agent should consume this before interacting with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for correct routing.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the content returned, including field metadata and optional options, and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs or describe the response container. This is acceptable for a simple metadata tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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?

Two compact, information-dense sentences. The first sentence enumerates the exact field attributes, and the second immediately connects the result to submit_enquiry. There is no filler or redundancy.

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-argument metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the domain, specifies the field attributes, and tells the agent how to use the keys. It could mention the shape of the returned value, such as list versus map, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap.

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 the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details for the description to add. The description appropriately focuses on return content and downstream usage, matching the zero-parameter baseline.

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 identifies the resource as 'every field of the Boat Value Calculator enquiry' and enumerates the returned attributes: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return' and does not distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.

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 final sentence gives actionable guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' telling the agent why to call this tool and how downstream submission should be structured. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe.

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 discharges it: it states what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what the agent must do with it (show it to the person), that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three chosen firms who may contact the person directly. That is unusually rich downstream-effect disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the key differentiator and then organized as Step 1/Step 2, which is easy to follow. It is on the long side because the full consent sentence is repeated verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is the one element that does not earn its place twice.

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 cover returns and side effects — and it does: return values, the consent artifact, the confirmation token, and the email-verification gate. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or explain it to the user is missing.

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; however the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by tying `answers` to field keys from enquiry_fields and by explaining the workflow role of `confirmation` (only supplied on step 2 after approval). The only redundancy is re-quoting the consent text already present in 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Boat Value Calculator') and immediately scopes it negatively ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which cleanly separates it from calculate, enquiry_fields and the describe siblings. An agent can pick this tool without inspecting any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent=true, then step 2 only if the person agrees, re-sending the same answers plus the confirmation token. The conditional gating ('only if the person agrees') and the ordering are fully specified, 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.