site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool reads data, mutates anything, returns a list, or has side effects; 'The criteria and any filters...' only asserts a subject without describing 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 one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently written. It does not earn its place because it conveys almost no actionable information about the 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?

Even for a zero-parameter tool, an agent needs to know what this operation returns or reveals. There is no output schema, no annotations, and the one-line description does not explain the result or the tool's role, leaving the minimal contract undefined.

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 are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, though the description adds little beyond naming criteria and filters.

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 'criteria and any filters' as the subject but lacks a verb or explicit action, reading as a noun phrase rather than a tool definition. An agent cannot tell whether this tool returns criteria, compares them, or configures them, nor does it distinguish from compare_options or compare_table.

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 use this tool, what precedes it, or how it relates to sibling comparison tools. The description provides no context to help an agent choose between compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table.

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 optional filtering by tag value and the data fields, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, what the output looks like, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is thin coverage for a tool with no annotation support.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is technically concise. However, it is under-specified rather than tightly informative, and the opening 'The options' is not an action-oriented or clarifying lead. It is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 minimal parameter documentation, so the description must carry more weight. It fails to explain the operation, parameter semantics, or when to choose this tool over its siblings, leaving a meaningful completeness gap even for a simple filtering 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and both parameters are completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions filtering by 'a tag value,' which hints at filterValue's purpose, but it never explains filterKey or the relationship between the two parameters. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 resource ('options in the Job management software for UK trades comparison') and lists included fields, but it never states the action verb—whether the tool lists, retrieves, or compares options. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_criteria or compare_table, so the exact purpose remains vague.

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 alternatives such as compare_criteria or compare_table. The only usage hint is the optional tag-value filtering, but there is no context about prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions.

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 communicating observable behavior. It describes the output content well: every option's value on every criterion, the full table. It does not explicitly discuss read-only behavior, default handling when the option parameter is omitted, or result formatting, but the description is sufficient for a simple lookup-oriented 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 a single focused sentence with no wasted words. The trailing 'the full table' is slightly redundant after 'each option's value on every criterion', but it works as an em-dashed clarification and makes the tool's scope easy to scan.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the agent will get. The schema fills the remaining invocation detail about the option parameter. Explicit sibling-routing guidance would be the main enhancement, but it is inferable from the description.

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 already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, so the tool description does not need to add much. The description's phrase 'the full table' loosely aligns with the schema's 'else all' default, but it adds no new parameter-level meaning. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: the full comparison table of every option's value on every criterion for the UK trades job management software comparison. It lacks an explicit operative verb such as 'returns' or 'fetches', but the meaning is unambiguous. It is also distinct enough from siblings like compare_criteria and compare_options, which likely show narrower views.

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 that this tool is the right choice when the agent needs the complete cross-product of options and criteria. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer compare_table over compare_criteria or compare_options, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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 transparently states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns consent wording and confirmation details. This gives an agent clear expectations about side effects and output content.

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 compact sentences with zero wasted words. The 'Read first' directive is front-loaded, followed by a plain statement of purpose and a concise summary of returned information. 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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's purpose, frames the enquiry process, and lists the key return contents. It does not explicitly state the tool itself is read-only, but that is strongly implied by 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does.'

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 parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation because there are no parameters 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 clearly identifies enquiry_describe as a descriptive/overview tool for submit_enquiry, using a specific verb ('States plainly') and naming the resource (submit_enquiry on Compare Trade Software). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on explaining the enquiry process rather than performing purchases or comparisons.

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' is an explicit directive to use this tool before acting, establishing clear context for when to invoke it. It clarifies what submit_enquiry does and what it does not do, but it does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools or when not to use it beyond the implied 'before submitting an enquiry.'

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 of behavioral disclosure. It details the kind of data returned and the accepted option values, and it implies a safe read-only metadata operation. It does not explicitly state the response format or possible absence of optional fields, but it gives enough behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and then immediately providing actionable guidance about how to use its output. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete: it enumerates the output fields, notes variability for allowed options, and connects the result to the submission workflow. An agent can correctly invoke this tool and understand how to use the returned data.

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 schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantics by explaining that field keys are the expected keys for submit_enquiry, but there are no input parameters to elaborate on.

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 enumerates every field of the Compare Trade Software enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like submit_enquiry and compare_options, which serve different purposes.

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: it points to submit_enquiry and tells the agent to pass answers keyed by the field keys from this tool. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or all sibling alternatives, but the primary workflow is well 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 so: it discloses the validation/summary/token return of step 1, that submission only happens on the second call, that a double opt-in email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, that up to three suppliers receive the contact details, and exactly what consent attests to. Error paths are not described, but the state machine, data-sharing scope, and side effects are unusually well disclosed.

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 disambiguation, then the two steps in order; every sentence is operative. The verbatim consent quote is long and repeats the schema's consent description, which is defensible for a legal attestation but is mild duplication.

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, so the description must cover returns, and it does: step 1 yields a summary, consent line and confirmation token; step 2 yields a submitted enquiry plus a person-facing confirmation email. Nested 'answers' keying is also explained ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'). Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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, but the description adds sequencing semantics the schema cannot express: 'confirmation' belongs only to step 2 and must be omitted in step 1, and consent must be paired with the displayed summary. The consent wording is largely duplicated from the schema rather than extended.

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 Compare Trade Software') and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This clearly separates it from the compare_* siblings (which read/compute) and from enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields (which only surface 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the gating condition spelled out: step 1 with answers + consent=true, show the person the summary, and step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the token added. It also states the precondition that consent=true means the person has read the quoted consent sentence, leaving no ambiguity about when to call.

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