site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a meaningful runtime behavior—missing inputs fall back to documented defaults—and lists the computed output categories. It does not discuss error handling or side effects, but for an idempotent calculation tool this is 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 compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by a clear list of outputs and a short defaults statement. It earns its place, though the redundancy in 'calculator calculator' and the minor typo keep it from being perfect.

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 that there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values by listing the four output categories. It also notes the default fallback behavior, and the input schema fully documents the three optional parameters. Minor gaps such as currency and the semantics of the born cohort are not addressed, but the description is otherwise complete enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter (born, rates, salary) already documented and rates having an enum. The tool description only reiterates the default-fallback behavior already visible in the schema and adds no new parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Run the Malta salary calculator') and enumerates the exact outputs: income tax, employee social security, net annual pay, and net pay per month. This makes it identifiable as the calculation tool rather than the sibling describe/enquiry tools, though it does not explicitly name or compare against those 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?

Usage is implied: if an agent needs Malta salary/tax/net pay calculations, this tool is the natural match, and 'Run' signals execution. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no alternative routing such as 'use calculator_describe for details'.

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. It discloses the content categories (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, returns documentation rather than performing a calculation, or describe any side effects. The name 'describe' mitigates this, but the text alone is not fully explicit.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the content scope and uses parallel structure to list the three components. There is no fluff or repetition; every clause carries 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 zero-parameter describe tool without an output schema, the description gives a sufficient high-level contract: what the returned description covers. It could be more complete by mentioning the form of the output or how it relates to the 'calculate' sibling, but these are minor.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter details to document; the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'inputs' refers to the calculator being described, not to call parameters, so no confusion in the schema context.

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 resource (Malta salary calculator) and specifies its scope: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It clearly suggests a describe/documentation tool and is distinguishable from the sibling 'calculate', though it lacks an explicit operation verb like 'describes' or 'returns documentation'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus the sibling 'calculate' or the enquiry tools. The agent can infer that the description is meant to explain the calculator, but there is no explicit statement such as 'call this before calculating' or 'use calculate to run the calculator'.

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 and does so well: it emphasizes that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also states what content is returned. It does not explicitly say this tool itself is read-only, but the describe-style nature and zero parameters make that clear enough.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and moves efficiently from purpose to key caveats to return contents. Each sentence earns its place, though a slightly sharper separation between describing this tool and describing submit_enquiry would make it tighter.

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 is quite complete: it explains the context, the key guarantees, and what information is returned. It would be more complete if it explicitly stated that calling this tool does not submit an enquiry, but the intended usage is strongly implied.

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 detail to add beyond the schema. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than invocation arguments, matching the 0-parameter baseline.

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 plainly explains what submit_enquiry does on the Malta Payroll Calculator, positioning this tool as the explanatory counterpart to submit_enquiry. The title and 'Read first' further signal what the user gets. It is clear but not fully differentiated from the other describe-style sibling, calculator_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?

'Read first' is a useful directive that implies this tool should be consulted before acting on submit_enquiry. It provides clear context but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives. Still, the placement and wording make the intended usage reasonably obvious.

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 disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a metadata/read operation returning enquiry field definitions, and it explicitly points submission elsewhere ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry'), implying no side effects here. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but the operation is a simple no-parameter lookup.

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, front-loaded with the full content list, and a second sentence that connects the output to the next tool in the workflow. No filler or redundant restatement of the 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 zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it enumerates the returned field metadata and explains how to consume it downstream. An agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 empty and the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by explaining that the returned field keys are the canonical 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 identifies exactly what the tool exposes: every field of the Malta Payroll Calculator enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This is a specific resource and content list that distinguishes it from the broader enquiry_describe and the action-oriented submit_enquiry.

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 gives clear workflow guidance: retrieve fields first, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus each sibling, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for schema discovery.

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 fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-step submission process, validation and summary return, the token requirement, the email link that must be clicked, and that providers only see the enquiry after that click. It also defines consent with the exact consent line.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: it explains the two-step flow, the exact consent wording, the user-facing display requirement, and the email confirmation step. The structure is organized and front-loads the most important 'not a purchase' caveat before diving into steps.

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 multi-step tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies inputs, intermediate outputs, the condition for step 2, the consent line, and the post-submission email flow. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly in both steps.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds essential meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must match the specified agreement text, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1 after approval. This clarifies the relationship between parameters that the schema alone does not convey.

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 a specific action (submits an enquiry) and a specific target (Malta Payroll Calculator), and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also frames the two-step nature, which differentiates it from the sibling tools like calculate and 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?

The description gives a precise when-to-use protocol: first call with answers and consent, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also explains the consent condition and the email verification step, leaving little ambiguity about how to use the tool correctly.

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