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. It does state the primary behavior—returning the next question or final verdict—but omits important details such as whether the answer is recorded server-side, what happens if the question id is invalid or the choice index is out of range, and whether repeated calls are idempotent.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: it specifies the inputs, the operation, and the possible outputs, making the tool's behavior immediately understandable.

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 there is no output schema, the description reasonably explains the return value (next question or final verdict), but it leaves gaps: it does not state how to obtain a question id, how the 'next question' is represented, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow with checker_start and checker_tree. These gaps mean an agent may need to infer critical context.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It clarifies that 'question' is a question id and 'choice' is the index of the chosen option, adding meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain where the question id originates or how to discover valid choice ranges.

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 verb ('return') and resource ('the next question or the final verdict'), making the tool's core function clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the progression behavior, though it does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative.

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 used after a question has been presented and an option chosen, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus checker_start, checker_tree, or the enquiry_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the workflow context.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool is the first question of a guide; it does not state what happens when called, whether it initializes state, returns a question, or has side effects. This is a notable gap for a checker-style 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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key fact that this is the first question and names the specific decision guide it belongs to.

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 is structurally simple with no parameters and no output schema, and the description conveys its entry-point role. However, the absence of behavioral details and annotations leaves uncertainty about what a call to checker_start actually returns or does, so completeness is only partial.

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, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 the tool as the first question in a specific named decision guide, 'Where to incorporate: narrow the shortlist.' This makes the tool's entry-point role reasonably clear, though it lacks a direct action verb and does not fully distinguish it from the checker_* siblings.

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 phrase 'first question' clearly implies that this tool should be used at the start of the decision guide. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied 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 disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool exposes the entire tree rather than a single node, which is useful, but it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, how the content is structured, or any constraints such as response size or navigation dependencies.

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 communicates the content scope and intended use without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every phrase 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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately conveys the full scope of returned content and the purpose of using it. It could be stronger by explicitly relating it to the sibling step-based tools, but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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-level documentation is not required. The schema coverage is trivially complete, and the description adds enough context about what the returned content contains.

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 tool as containing the complete decision tree for the incorporation guide, listing its components: every question, option, and verdict. It is not a tautology and conveys more than the title alone, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides'.

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 phrase 'for reasoning end to end' implies the tool should be used when the agent needs the full decision tree rather than a single step. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like checker_answer or checker_start, nor does it provide 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns who receives details, the consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives the agent critical expectations about costs, guarantees, and privacy-related 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 about 55 words across three sentences and is front-loaded with 'Read first.' Every sentence contributes, though there is minor redundancy between 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'it is free,' and the title partially repeats the same assurances.

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 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines purpose, flow mechanics, non-financial nature, and return contents. It could go one step further by explicitly stating that the tool itself does not submit an enquiry, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' largely cover that.

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, so there is no schema coverage burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool communicates rather than parameters, which satisfies the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and enumerates exactly what the enquiry flow entails and returns. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the 'Read first' explanatory counterpart to submit_enquiry, clearly separate from checker_*, enquiry_fields, and the submit action itself.

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 contextual instruction: the agent should consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It conveys when to use the tool (before engaging with the enquiry flow), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned and notes that allowed options are included 'where there are any', which is a useful nuance. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor describe the response structure (e.g., array vs object) or any potential errors.

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 with no wasted content. The first sentence comprehensively lists what is returned; the second gives actionable next-step guidance. 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, no-output-schema tool, this description is quite complete. It explains the content of the response and how to use the returned keys. Minor gaps include the exact response format (JSON object vs array) and lack of an explicit read-only guarantee, but these are not critical for this simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings since there are none. It does explain the field keys that will be used as answer keys for submit_enquiry, which is related but not about tool 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 identifies the resource ('every field of the Incorporate Where enquiry') and enumerates the type of data returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous. It indirectly distinguishes from siblings by linking to submit_enquiry, though it does not mention 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?

The second sentence gives explicit guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This clearly tells the agent how to use the output of this tool in conjunction with a sibling tool. It does not state when not to use it or compare with enquiry_describe, but the context is clear enough.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this exceptionally well: it explicitly says this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, explains the two-step consent flow, states that the person receives an email and must click a link before any provider sees the enquiry, and defines consent verbatim.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose before the step details. It is longer than minimal because it encodes an important two-step consent process, and nearly every sentence contributes necessary behavioral or safety information. The consent quote is repeated from the schema, but that repetition is justified by the need to make consent explicit in natural-language guidance.

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 and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it covers the two required calls, the display obligation, the token flow, the consent requirement, and the post-submit email/link gate. It also points to enquiry_fields for constructing the answers object, closing the main contextual gap.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, the same answers must be reused in step 2, and the confirmation token comes from step 1 only after the person approves the summary. This clarifies the lifecycle of the parameters rather than just restating their types.

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 verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Incorporate Where.' It also sharply distinguishes the tool from a purchase and a guaranteed quote, and the two-step framing clarifies what the tool does. The title reinforces the same message, and the behavior is clearly separable from the 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 description gives explicit step-by-step usage guidance: first call validates and returns a summary and token, second call submits only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the when-to-call instructions are clear enough that an agent can follow the correct flow.

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