site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and enumerates the outputs (minimum investment, fees, currency, total outlay), giving the agent a clear expectation of results. It does not explicitly state that no data is written or how dependants alter the fees, though the read-only nature of a calculator 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact list of outputs and a fallback note. The redundant 'calculator calculator' phrase and the slightly list-like structure are minor defects, but every clause 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool computes and the fallback behavior, so an agent can predict results well enough to invoke it. It does not explain the cryptic programme enum values, but the sibling calculator_describe tool likely covers programme semantics, and the schema already lists the available options.

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 fully documents both parameters, including the programme enum and the dependants default/maximum, so the description need not repeat those details. The description adds a useful note about default fallback and provides output context, but it does not explain how dependants affect the calculation or what each programme code means. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Run the Golden visa cost calculator', and lists the four calculated outputs, making the tool's purpose reasonably distinct from the sibling describe/enquiry/submit tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling, and the doubled 'calculator calculator' is a minor distraction, so it stops short of a top score.

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 use when a Golden visa cost calculation is needed, and it notes that omitted inputs fall back to documented defaults, which helps guide invocation. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over calculator_describe or the enquiry tools, leaving alternative routing mostly 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says what information is returned (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only descriptive tool with no side effects, nor does it mention any limits or caveats about the description itself.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that clearly enumerates the contained information. Every element is purposeful and no filler exists.

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 adequately specifies its scope. It could be slightly more explicit that it is purely informational and not a calculation endpoint, but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is largely 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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about what would be documented (units, ranges, defaults), but there is no parameter schema 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 states exactly what the tool does: it describes the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'calculate', which presumably performs the computation.

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 the tool is a reference/help tool to consult before or instead of calculating, but it never explicitly says 'use this when you need to understand the calculator inputs/outputs' or 'do not use this to run calculations'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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 and does so thoroughly: it clarifies that no purchase is made, no payment occurs, no quote is guaranteed, and the enquiry is free. It also discloses who receives details, the consent wording, and the confirmation mechanism, making side effects and expectations highly 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 compact, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence adds essential information. It covers behavior, exclusions, pricing, and return contents without any fluff or repetitive padding beyond the intentionally emphasized safety caveats.

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 describe tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent why the tool exists, what it returns, what it does not do, and how it relates to submit_enquiry, leaving no meaningful gap 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed; the schema already covers everything. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's informational output rather than parameter details, matching the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does, distinguishing it from the actual submission tool and other siblings like enquiry_fields. The verb 'States' and the explicit reference to submit_enquiry make the tool's role 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?

'Read first' is an explicit cue to use this tool before submitting an enquiry, which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, but the prerequisite relationship to submit_enquiry is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 discloses that the tool returns the full set of enquiry fields and their metadata, and implies a read-only listing behavior. It does not explicitly state side effects or lack thereof, but nothing in the description suggests mutation, and the focus on field metadata makes the behavior reasonably 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 sentences with no filler. The core output content is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the practical usage note follows immediately. Every clause 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description provides the essential context: what is returned and how to use it. It could go slightly further by explicitly stating the return shape (e.g., a list/array of field definitions), but the current wording is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and interpret results.

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 no parameters, so the empty input schema is fully covered. The description adds helpful context by explaining how the returned field keys relate to submit_enquiry, which is useful even though 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 the resource ('every field of the Golden Visa Calculator enquiry') and enumerates the specific attributes returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This is more specific than the title alone and distinguishes it from submit_enquiry by telling the caller to use the keys for submission.

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 by stating that field keys returned here should be used to pass answers to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly explain when not to use this tool versus calculator_describe or enquiry_describe, but the purpose is specific enough that the intended workflow is evident.

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 and meets the full burden: it discloses that this is not a purchase or quote, that validation happens first, that a confirmation token gates submission, and that a double-opt-in email click precedes any provider seeing the data, plus how many firms receive the contact details. This is unusually rich 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?

Front-loaded with the disclaimers and a clear step ordering, and every sentence carries operational weight. The verbatim consent quote duplicates text already present in the schema's consent parameter, which is the one avoidable redundancy.

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 nested-object, no-output-schema mutation-style tool, it fully covers the flow: what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what the caller must show the person, what step 2 does, and the downstream email-verification and provider-distribution model. An agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all three parameters including the verbatim consent text and the origin of the confirmation token. The description reinforces the step-1/step-2 sequencing of answers, consent and confirmation, but adds little beyond the schema's own wording — the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('submits an enquiry to Golden Visa Calculator') and explicitly negates the two most likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling enquiry_fields by telling the agent where answer keys come from.

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 exact two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to validate and obtain a token, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token added. The when-to-proceed condition is explicit, with no reliance on inference.

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