site

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and that the tool produces calculated quantities rather than performing an enquiry/submission. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' but a pure calculator's read-only nature is strongly implied by the output-oriented wording.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler beyond the redundant 'calculator calculator'. The semicolon-separated output list is compact and each item adds information. Minor word duplication prevents a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates four outputs (actual roof area, squares, panel area to order, installed rate used) and the default-fallback behavior. It is complete enough to invoke the tool with confidence, though it doesn't define the exact response structure or an explicit total-cost figure, which would be helpful for a 'cost calculator.'

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 already documents all 7 parameters with defaults and descriptions (100% coverage), which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the global fallback behavior and output names like 'Panel area to order, including waste' that slightly enrich waste semantics, but it does not compensate for or add much 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 names the exact action ('Run') and resource ('Metal roof cost calculator') and lists the computed outputs, so an agent can tell this is the calculation tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with calculator_describe or submit_enquiry, but the verb and output list are clear. The duplicated 'calculator calculator' is awkward but not confusing.

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 use case is implied by the title and the imperative 'Run'—this is the tool for computing metal-roof values, not for describing or enquiring. However, the description never states when to prefer it over the sibling tools or gives exclusions/prerequisites. The fallback-default note is an invocation rule, not usage 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 burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: it returns a description of inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It does not explicitly state that the tool itself performs no calculation or has no side effects, but the describe-oriented wording makes that largely apparent.

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 front-loads the key content: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. Every phrase adds value and there is no 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema descriptive tool, the description is fully sufficient. It names all the categories of information an agent would expect to receive, leaving no obvious 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter details for this call itself, but it does clarify that the tool describes the underlying calculator's parameters rather than accepting its own, which is enough.

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 precisely states that the tool conveys the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. Combined with the name 'calculator_describe' and title, it is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling's '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 purpose implies this should be used when an agent needs to understand the calculator's inputs/outputs before calculating, and the sibling list includes 'calculate' as the natural alternative. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over other tools or any 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, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well: it reveals that the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It also clarifies key user-facing outcomes such as 'it is free' and 'no quote is guaranteed.'

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 most important usage signal ('Read first'). Every sentence earns its place: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to know exactly why this tool exists, when to read it, and what information it will return. Nothing essential is missing for a describe-style 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 there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The schema already fully covers the empty parameter set, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related content.

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-resource pair: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the Metal Roof Cost Calculator. It also clearly differentiates itself from the actual submission action by clarifying that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed.

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 a clear directive to consult this tool before taking action, and the description explains what kind of information the agent will gain. It does not explicitly name when to prefer sibling tools, but the 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' framing implicitly tells the agent this is informational rather than transactional.

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 available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully describes what the tool returns (field metadata) and implies a read-only, non-mutating behavior by directing mutation to submit_enquiry. It does not mention errors or edge cases, but for a simple field-listing tool this is sufficient.

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 packs the resource, the exact output contents, and a downstream usage instruction with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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?

The description is complete enough for a simple metadata-retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema. It covers what fields are returned and how to use them, and despite not mentioning sibling tools like enquiry_describe, the field-focused scope is clear.

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 adds useful contextual information by explaining that returned field keys are meant to be used as keys for submit_enquiry, which helps an agent understand how the no-input tool fits into the larger workflow.

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 as 'Every field of the Metal Roof Cost Calculator enquiry' and enumerates the exact content: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It implies a retrieval/description purpose and distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 usage context by stating 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells an agent how to use the field keys after fetching them. It does not explicitly contrast against enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, but the intended workflow is clear.

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 does so: it discloses the two-step confirmation flow, that submission triggers an email with a verification link, that no provider sees the enquiry until that link is clicked, and that contact details go to up to three contractors who may contact the person directly. These are exactly the side-effect and consent semantics an agent must know before invoking a mutation.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then the two steps in order — well structured. It loses a point for re-quoting the full consent sentence verbatim, which already appears in the schema's consent description, making it longer than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (a summary, the consent line, a confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email verification before providers see it). 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (a sibling tool), that consent=true is required at both steps, and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1. This relational context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Metal Roof Cost Calculator") and immediately scopes what it is not ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). This lets an agent distinguish it from the calculate/calculator sibling tools without opening any schema.

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 explicit, ordered when-to-use protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. The gating condition for each call is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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