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 explains the calculation flow: fee before minimum, completion fee after minimum, retainers paid over the mandate, and balance at completion, which is meaningful behavioral detail. It does not mention side effects, but as a calculator this is reasonable, and the default-fallback note adds transparency.

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 scannable with a colon-separated list, but it contains a redundant typo ('calculator calculator') that undermines polish. Each clause carries information, but the structure is slightly cluttered.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and seven optional parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the fee components and defaults, but it does not describe the return value shape or how to handle the output, and it omits guidance on sibling-tool selection. This is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond pointing to documented defaults and clarifying the retainer/minimum context, which does not surpass the baseline expectation.

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 operation ('Run') and the resource ('M&A advisory fee calculator'), and it enumerates the fee components it produces. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calculator_describe or submit_enquiry, so it misses the top score, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 context by listing what the calculator computes and notes that missing inputs fall back to defaults. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns documentation-like content, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, performs no calculations, or has no side effects. The scope is clear but the behavioral guarantees are implicit.

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 one well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates exactly what the tool returns. Every clause contributes meaning, with no filler or 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 simple descriptive tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential content: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and underlying tables. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting there are no required parameters or by pointing users to 'calculate' for the actual computation, but it is adequate.

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 this dimension is 4. The description adds context about calculator-level inputs (units, ranges, defaults), which is useful even though those are not API parameters. 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 clearly states what the tool provides: the calculator's inputs with units/ranges/defaults, its outputs, and its assumptions and tables. It is clearly descriptive rather than computational, which helps distinguish it from the sibling 'calculate', though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 is for understanding the calculator's inputs, outputs, and assumptions, rather than for performing calculations. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus 'calculate' or other siblings, so the routing is 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 carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; that no quote is guaranteed; that the enquiry is free; and that the returned content includes recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation mechanism. This gives the agent meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 four short sentences that cover purpose, key constraints, and return content without filler. The most important instruction ('Read first') is front-loaded, and every sentence 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 describe tool, the description covers the essential context: what submit_enquiry does, the non-purchase and no-guarantee caveats, the cost, and the returned information. It could more explicitly contrast with calculator_describe/enquiry_fields, but nothing required to call this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about inputs because there are none to document; the schema already provides complete 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 states clearly that this is a read-first explainer for submit_enquiry, naming the specific operation ('starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly') and the domain (M&A Advisor Fees). It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing rather than performing the submission, and the title reinforces the non-purchase framing.

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' gives explicit timing guidance: consult this tool before acting on submit_enquiry. It clearly explains what submit_enquiry does so an agent can decide whether that tool fits, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as calculator_describe or enquiry_fields or state when not to use this tool.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying exactly what information is exposed and how the output relates to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the zero-parameter schema and descriptive nature make that reasonably 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the content details, and the second immediately provides actionable guidance about downstream usage.

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 stateless metadata-introspection tool with no input schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the enquiry, enumerates the field metadata, and explains how to use the result. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining that the field keys returned here are the same keys to use when submitting answers to submit_enquiry.

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 M&A Advisor Fees enquiry') and lists the exact content returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly distinguish itself from the sibling 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?

It provides useful context by stating that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool is the right lookup before submission. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like enquiry_describe, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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 meets it: it reveals the two-step submission flow, the consent requirement with the exact consent text, the fact that a confirmation token is returned, and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. This goes well beyond the schema to explain side effects and sequencing.

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 detailed but tightly structured into Step 1 and Step 2, with the key exclusion placed first. Every sentence adds necessary operational knowledge; the length is justified by the two-step complexity and no redundant filler is present.

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 is complete: it explains what the first call returns, what the agent must show the user, what the second call requires, and what happens after submission (email and click-before-view). The single gap, exact response shape, is not necessary given the explicit procedural guidance.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial meaning: answers must be keyed from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the user agrees to the quoted line, and confirmation is the step-1 token that must be passed in step 2. The parameter roles and ordering are fully explained 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to M&A Advisor Fees') and immediately differentiates the tool by saying it is NOT a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step nature is front-loaded in both title and description, so an agent can distinguish it from calculators and describe 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 provides an explicit step-by-step usage protocol: call with answers and consent, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for keying answers, offering clear cross-sibling guidance, and states what the tool is not for (purchases/guaranteed quotes).

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