site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions default fallback. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what outputs are produced, or any side effects, and the duplicated phrase adds confusion.

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 poorly structured: 'calculator calculator' is redundant and 'Published regulator fees, year one' appears twice. It reads like a malformed concatenation rather than a clean, front-loaded explanation.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the calculator returns, how the listed regulator fees and MiCA minimum capital relate to the result, or which specific defaults apply to missing inputs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic 'Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults', which does not enhance the schema's already-provided parameter 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?

The description says 'Run the Crypto licence cost calculator calculator', which names a verb and resource, but the redundant 'calculator calculator' and the repeated 'Published regulator fees, year one' fragment muddy the meaning. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-related note, 'Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults', concerns input behavior rather than selecting this tool over a sibling.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool returns inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, assumptions, and tables, giving a clear expectation of content. It does not mention any side effects or limitations, but for a describe-only tool this is largely sufficient.

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 that front-loads the main content areas: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. Every phrase adds useful meaning with no redundancy 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 descriptive tool, the description is largely complete: it names the categories of information returned. However, it does not describe the format of the output or whether it includes examples, which would strengthen completeness given there is no output schema.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about the calculator's inputs and outputs, even though there are no parameter schemas 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 specifies what the tool does: it presents the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and underlying tables. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'calculate' and 'enquiry_describe' by focusing solely on explaining the calculation model rather than performing or handling enquiries.

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 instead of siblings such as 'calculate' or 'enquiry_describe'. The description implies it is informational, but it does not explicitly say to consult this before performing a calculation or to understand the calculator's model.

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 of explaining behavior. It clearly states that the tool describes rather than performs an action, and discloses the key facts users need: nothing is bought or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also summarizes what is returned. It could explicitly say 'this tool does not submit an enquiry,' but 'states' and 'returns' make the behavior sufficiently clear.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and efficiently moves from purpose to key caveats to return content. Each sentence adds value, though some wording overlaps with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote').

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's role, the domain, the important caveats, and what information is returned. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly and know 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 and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation 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 uses a clear verb ('states') and specific resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Crypto Licence Costs'), and distinguishes itself from the actual action tool submit_enquiry by explicitly framing itself as the read-first explainer. This is not a tautology and an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools.

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' clearly signals when to use this tool: before submit_enquiry, to understand what will happen. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose and positioning relative to submit_enquiry are 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the content and structure of the returned field definitions, including key, label, type, required, help text, and options. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only metadata operation or describe the overall return format, though these are reasonably inferable.

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 sentences convey the full purpose, the data content, and the connection to submit_enquiry with no wasted words. The most important information 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?

For a zero-parameter inspection tool, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: what fields exist, what attributes are included, and how to use the results with a sibling tool. It could mention the output format, but the lack of parameters and the simple metadata nature make the description reasonably 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, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The mention of field keys as the required keying mechanism for submit_enquiry is useful related context and aligns with the empty 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 clearly states that the tool provides every field of the Crypto Licence Costs enquiry, enumerating the kinds of data included. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous and the mention of submit_enquiry helps distinguish it from related tools.

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 should be used to discover the enquiry fields before submitting answers, and explicitly tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not name alternatives like enquiry_describe, but the usage context is clear enough for correct selection.

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 burden — and it delivers. It discloses that the first call only validates and returns a summary/token, the second call actually submits, an email with a click link is required before providers see the enquiry, and consent has a specific legal meaning. This level of transparency exceeds typical tool definitions.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering a genuinely complex two-step flow, consent wording, and post-submission behavior. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses clear 'Step 1'/'Step 2' markers despite being a single paragraph. Slight density prevents a 5, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key flows: validation returns summary/consent/token, final submission triggers an email link, and consent has an exact definition. It does not detail error handling for invalid answers or a failed confirmation token, but it does say 'validates', implying feedback. Overall, an agent can execute the intended protocol 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?

Although the schema descriptions cover the parameters, the description adds critical operational meaning: confirmation is not just a string but the token from step 1, answers must be keyed by field key, and consent must be true only after the exact consent statement is read. This transforms the schema from a static type definition into a usable protocol.

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: 'Submits an enquiry to Crypto Licence Costs' and immediately clarifies what it is NOT (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). The two-step nature and the distinction from siblings like enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields make the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 sequences the two calls: first validate with answers and consent=true to get a summary and confirmation token, then call again with the same answers plus token only after the person agrees. It also states the condition for consent and the alternative of not submitting, effectively telling an agent when to proceed and when not to.

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