site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one useful trait: missing inputs fall back to documented defaults. It does not explicitly state that this is a pure read-only calculation or what it returns, though the calculator nature makes that reasonably evident from the name.

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 short sentence with the main action front-loaded. But the typo 'calculator calculator' and the misleading input enumeration are waste, and the list does not earn its place because it conflicts with the schema.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at least clarify what the calculator computes, what the expected output is, and how it relates to calculator_describe. None of that is present, and the mismatched input list increases confusion rather than reducing it.

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 covers all six parameters with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage), which normally establishes a baseline of 3. The description actively detracts, however, by listing inputs ('Electricity you buy each year', 'System size that covers it') that do not correspond to the schema's ppw, bill, rate, orient, battery, and battCost, potentially misleading an agent about what to pass.

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 action ('Run...') and resource ('California solar cost calculator'), so an agent can roughly tell what it does. However, the redundant 'calculator calculator' phrasing and an input list (kWh, kW, panels) that does not match the actual schema (ppw, bill, rate, orient, battery, battCost) muddle the statement. It also does not differentiate this from the sibling 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the siblings (calculator_describe, submit_enquiry, etc.). The only usage hint is that missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults, which is useful but does not address alternative selection or prerequisites.

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 disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool returns a description of inputs, outputs, and assumptions, which implies a read-only informational operation, but it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed or that there are no 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 a single, well-structured sentence that names the three major content areas: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It is concise, front-loaded, and every part 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?

For a simple informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential content scope. It could be slightly more explicit about being a read-only reference and about not performing the calculation, but overall the agent can correctly understand what this tool offers.

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 input schema is empty. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain parameters. It promises details about inputs, but those are content described by the tool, not calling 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 clearly states that the tool describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. This differentiates it from the sibling 'calculate' tool, which presumably executes the calculation, though the description does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 the sibling 'calculate' or 'enquiry_describe' tools. The intended use is implied by the name and title, but the description does not state conditions such as 'use this before calculating' or 'use calculate to run the calculator.'

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 explains exactly what the tool does (returns a plain-language explanation of submit_enquiry), what it does not do (nothing is bought, ordered, paid, or guaranteed), and what information is returned (who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method). This is thorough for a read-only informational tool.

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, front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Read first'), and every sentence earns its place: it states the tool's purpose, clarifies what it is not, and summarizes the return value. There is no fluff or redundant 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, why an agent should read it first, what the returned information covers, and the key caveats about submit_enquiry. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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. The description correctly focuses on the tool's informational output rather than parameter syntax, and no additional parameter details are needed. It fully compensates for the absence of parameter information by explaining the tool's behavior.

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 verb ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on California Solar Cost Calculator'), and clearly differentiates the tool from its sibling submit_enquiry by emphasizing it is informational rather than an action. It also clarifies that no purchase, order, payment, or guaranteed quote is involved, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 opening 'Read first' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before engaging with submit_enquiry. It provides clear context that this is a prerequisite read, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives beyond the implied distinction from submit_enquiry. This is strong guidance for a describe-style tool.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains what information is returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, but the content strongly implies a metadata retrieval with no 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence enumerates exactly what the agent will receive, and the second sentence gives direct actionable guidance for the related submission 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 listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the domain, the exact fields returned, and how the output should be used with submit_enquiry. It could mention the output format or whether the result is a list, but that is 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, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 returns every field of the California Solar Cost Calculator enquiry along with their metadata, which names a clear resource and distinguishes it from the sibling tools like submit_enquiry and calculate. It does not use a strong verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is 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 clear context: use this tool to discover enquiry fields and pass answers keyed by field key to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or state when to prefer enquiry_describe, but the relationship to submit_enquiry is clearly implied.

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: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing reaches providers until the person clicks an emailed link, that up to three installers are chosen by the calculator, and that the person can stop further disclosures. Mutation semantics, consent scope and downstream side effects are all covered.

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 purpose and the two-step flow before the long consent block, and every sentence about the protocol earns its place. The full verbatim consent text is repeated from the schema's consent description, which is the one clearly redundant element.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token, and step 2 triggers an email with a verification link before providers see anything. For a nested-object, multi-call mutation tool, an agent has everything it needs.

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 real sequencing semantics the schema cannot express: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true is required in both steps, and 'confirmation' is only supplied on the second call after approval. That is meaningfully more than the field-level descriptions.

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 and resource (submits an enquiry to California Solar Cost Calculator) and immediately draws the boundary against adjacent concepts: NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. It also names enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, which orients the agent among its siblings.

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 with the gating condition spelled out: step 1 call with answers plus consent=true, and step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. When to call, when to call again, and what must happen in between are all unambiguous.

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