site

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal default fallback behavior and lists the stages of the calculation, but it is silent on whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a calculator, non-mutation is fairly implied, but not stated explicitly.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource and then lists all outputs compactly. The only blemish is the redundant phrase 'calculator ... calculator' (the tool name/title already includes it).

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 description defines what the tool returns (chargeable gain, relief-rate tax, 24% tax, total CGT), and the schema covers all inputs, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. It lacks explicit usage conditions or error/edge-case notes, but given the simplicity of a calculator these are not critical gaps.

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 covers all five parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's only param-related note is that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, which adds a general behavior but no per-parameter meaning 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?

Description opens with the verb 'Run' and names the specific resource 'Exit proceeds calculator (2026/27)'. It enumerates the computed outputs (Chargeable gain; Tax at 18%; Tax at 24%; Total CGT), which clearly sets it apart from the sibling 'calculator_describe' that likely only describes the calculator.

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 usage when one needs to compute exit-proceeds tax figures, and it notes default fallback behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'calculator_describe' or the enquiry tools, nor any conditions where it should not be used.

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. It states the tool provides inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, which implies a non-mutating descriptive behavior. However, it does not explicitly declare that it performs no calculations or side effects, leaving some ambiguity about whether it executes the calculator or just documents it.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose, listing the exact content (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) without waste. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what an agent can expect: a breakdown of inputs, outputs, and background assumptions/tables. This is complete for the tool's simple scope.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist, and it appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than any inputs.

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 what the tool does: it describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. The verb 'describes' is implied, and the resource is the specific calculator. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'enquiry_describe' or mention that it is a read-only metadata tool, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 usage when one needs details about the calculator's inputs and outputs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over 'calculate' or other siblings. There is no exclusion or alternative mention, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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 behavioral burden and uses it well: it discloses that no purchase/order/payment occurs, no quote is guaranteed, and the flow is free. It also describes the returned information. It falls just short of explicitly stating this tool itself has no side effects, but that is strongly implied.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the 'Read first' usage cue; every sentence adds a distinct piece of information (purpose, non-transaction safety, returned content) with no 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, no-output-schema describe tool, this is complete: it gives the agent the purpose, the decision-relevant safety facts, and the return content. Nothing else is required to call 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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter vocabulary to document. Per baseline for zero-param tools, the description needs no param semantics and provides none.

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 the specific function ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does'), names the resource ('Exit Value Calculator enquiry'), and positions it as the read-first alternative to the sibling submit_enquiry. It also specifies what the tool returns (recipient, consent wording, confirmation), so an agent can tell it apart from calculator_describe or calculate.

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 to consult this tool before invoking submit_enquiry. It also frames the enquiry as non-purchase and free, which helps decide whether submit_enquiry is appropriate, though it does not name alternative tools 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It describes the content returned but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. Since it is a field-listing tool, read-only is implied but not stated. It also doesn't mention error cases or edge behavior, but for a simple retrieval this is acceptable.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then details the return fields and usage. No redundant words, and it efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent receives (field metadata) and how to apply it (keying answers for submit_enquiry). This is complete for an agent to call and use 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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds context about the output structure (fields with attributes) and how to use the keys, which is valuable despite the absence of 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 the tool returns every field of the Exit Value Calculator enquiry with specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help, options). The verb 'returns' and resource 'enquiry fields' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_enquiry (which submits) and calculate (which computes) by focusing on field metadata.

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 a clear usage context: the output should be used to key answers for submit_enquiry. This tells the agent how to chain the tool with a sibling. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to call it.

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 behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the two-step flow, validation and return of a summary/consent line/token, email link click required before provider visibility, and the exact consent meaning including data sharing limits and stop rights.

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 purpose and step order, and every sentence serves a purpose. The long quoted consent text is necessary for legal transparency, though the single-paragraph format could be more scannable with minor restructuring.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description covers the entire interaction lifecycle: validation, user approval, token, submission, email confirmation, and provider visibility. Nothing essential is missing 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning: answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true, and the confirmation token from step 1 reused in step 2. This clarifies parameter roles beyond the schema 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 the specific verb 'submits' and resource 'enquiry to Exit Value Calculator', and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step framing also separates it from sibling tools like calculate or enquiry_fields.

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?

Provides clear step-by-step usage: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 only after the person agrees. It references enquiry_fields for field keys, tying it to a sibling. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for obtaining a quote or purchase, leaving some routing implied.

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