site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exact contribution rates (8.8% social insurance, 2.65% GHS), the inclusion of provident fund contributions, and the fact that these are deducted before tax, which accurately conveys the calculation order. The default-fallback statement also signals that the tool is robust to missing inputs, though it stops short of describing the output structure.

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 the action and resource in the first five words. The only inefficiency is the doubled 'calculator' phrase ('gross to net calculator, 2026 calculator'), which is a minor wording flaw in an otherwise tight description.

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 three documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs, rates, and fallback behavior. The tool's title and name indicate the result is a gross-to-net computation, so an agent can infer the output. It could be more explicit about the exact return payload, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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. The description adds value by mapping the calculation behavior to the parameters: it identifies the social insurance and GHS rates that apply to gross salary and references the provident fund parameter, plus the pre-tax deduction order. It does not explain the 'salaries' parameter, but the schema already does.

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 ('Run'), a specific resource ('Cyprus gross to net calculator, 2026'), and the core calculation logic, including the rates. This clearly differentiates it from the describe/enquiry sibling tools, which are about inspection rather than execution.

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 context—this is the tool that runs the calculator—and directly tells the agent that omitted inputs will fall back to defaults, implying optional parameters can be skipped. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but no other sibling performs the same calculation, so the use case is unambiguous.

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. It transparently explains what the tool returns: input specifications, outputs, assumptions, and tables. As a describe-only tool with no parameters, this sufficiently conveys its non-mutating, informational nature.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key content areas: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition of the title or wasted wording.

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 gives a reasonable overview of what will be found. It might be slightly stronger with an explicit statement that this is read-only documentation, but the tool's nature makes that unnecessary.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by mentioning units, ranges, defaults, and return categories, which helps an agent understand the value of calling this tool even without 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 documents the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions and tables, which is a clear purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'calculate', though the name and 'describe' nature imply the distinction.

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 this tool should be used to understand the calculator's behavior and details before using it, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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 must carry the transparency burden. It does clarify that the action being described belongs to submit_enquiry and that this tool 'returns' details, consent wording, and confirmation method, implying a read-only informational function. However, it never explicitly states that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects, and the title could be misread as producing an enquiry.

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: three sentences, led by 'Read first', and packs the key disclaimers and return-value summary efficiently. A little redundancy with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote') keeps it from a 5.

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 help/describe tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what submit_enquiry does, what is not included, and what the returned explanation will contain. It does not detail how the returned text should be used or relate to enquiry_fields, but nothing critical is missing for invoking 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 tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. It adds no parameter-specific meaning, but 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 states a clear function: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Cyprus Gross to Net, so an agent can see it is an explanatory companion to the submission tool. It also lists what the returned explanation covers. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools such as enquiry_fields or calculator_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?

'Read first' is an explicit use cue: call this before using submit_enquiry. The description also makes clear this tool is the informational precursor to submit_enquiry. It gives no when-not-to-use or alternatives, so it lacks the full exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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 does disclose what the output contains and how it relates to submit_enquiry, but it never states whether this operation is read-only, whether it reflects live enquiry state, or what happens if no fields exist. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 focused sentences: the first succinctly enumerates the return contents, and the second gives practical usage guidance. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 metadata tool, the description covers the output structure and the downstream relationship to submit_enquiry. It is nearly complete, but it does not explicitly clarify how enquiry_fields differs from enquiry_describe or state that no mutation is performed.

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 documentation is not needed. The description still adds value by explaining that the returned field keys are the ones to use when submitting answers, which orients the agent for downstream invocation.

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 (the Cyprus Gross to Net enquiry) and enumerates exactly what is returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list,' and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it falls 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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies a workflow: fetch fields first, then submit answers using those keys. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, and it provides no 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, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the validation/return behavior of step 1, the token gate on step 2, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data. The consent scope (up to three providers, right to stop) is fully spelled out.

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/exclusion before the two-step instructions, and the steps are delimited clearly. The long verbatim consent quotation is duplicated almost identically in the schema, which costs some economy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the entire lifecycle: inputs, two-step gating, what each step returns, and downstream consent/email behavior. 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-step meaning: which parameters belong to step 1 vs step 2 and that confirmation must be the token returned by step 1. This ordering constraint is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 Cyprus Gross to Net') and immediately bounds it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like calculate/calculator_describe and from the read-only enquiry_fields/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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also points to enquiry_fields for the field keys, so the agent knows what to call first and what to do after.

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