site

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully states that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and lists the calculator's components, but it does not mention whether the tool has side effects, what its output looks like, or any prerequisites.

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 starts with the main action, but it contains an obvious redundancy ('calculator calculator') and presents the cost components as a run-on list. It would be cleaner and more readable as a structured breakdown.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides core calculation context and a useful default-behavior note. However, it omits any statement of the return value and does not clarify potentially ambiguous parameters such as route or spouse string format.

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% and every parameter already has a description and default, so the schema handles most parameter meaning. The description adds meaningful value by specifying that adult dependant fees are €7,500 each, which is not stated in the adultDependants parameter description.

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 ('Run') and a specific resource ('Malta MPRP cost calculator') and enumerates the cost components, so an agent can tell this is a calculation tool rather than a describe tool. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like calculator_describe, though 'Run' implies execution.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculator_describe or submit_enquiry. The imperative 'Run' implies a use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection cues are 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain what content the tool returns (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or that no calculation is performed.

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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the scope of the tool. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.

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 sufficiently outlines the content coverage: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting its relationship to the 'calculate' sibling, but no critical invocation information 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 adds useful context by indicating that the calculator's inputs have units, ranges, and defaults, even though it does not enumerate them. No invocation parameters are needed, so no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 conveys that this tool provides information about the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'calculate' tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'describes', so the purpose is implied rather than directly stated.

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 about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as 'calculate' or 'enquiry_describe'. The agent must infer from the name and title that this is a descriptive utility rather than a computation 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 transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free; and it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation. It only stops short of explicitly stating that calling this tool itself is read-only and has no side effects.

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 tightly structured and front-loaded: 'Read first' grabs attention, the next sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences add essential non-commitment details and return content. No sentence is filler.

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 with no output schema, this is complete. An agent can determine when to call it, what it explains, and what the returned text covers, and it is clearly positioned as a precursor to submit_enquiry.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The description correctly spends no time on inputs and instead clarifies the tool's informational output. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-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 is specific and action-oriented: it says the tool 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the MPRP Calculator, and the title reinforces that the subject is an enquiry, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This clearly separates it from action tools like submit_enquiry and from calculator-related 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?

'Read first' is explicit, front-loaded usage guidance, telling the agent this is the orientation step before submitting an enquiry. It makes the intended context clear, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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 openly describes what the tool returns (field metadata and allowed options) and how the result should be used. Although it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, the informational nature is evident from the description.

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 long and contains no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the field attributes; the second sentence provides actionable guidance on using the output. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns; it does so by listing the field attributes. It also explains how to use the result with submit_enquiry, which is valuable. The main gap is not clarifying the relationship to enquiry_describe, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is largely sufficient.

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 offers no meaningful required information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds useful context by explaining that the returned field keys are to be used when submitting answers. This 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 that the tool provides every field of the MPRP Calculator enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by saying answers should be passed to that tool keyed by field key, though it does not differentiate 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?

The description implies a workflow: retrieve fields from this tool, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe or any other alternative, nor does it mention 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the two-step mutation, validation and returned summary/token, the email link requirement before any provider can see the enquiry, and the exact consent 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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and well organized into Step 1, Step 2, and Consent sections. It is dense but slightly long because the consent sentence repeats text already present in the schema, which is defensible for this consent-sensitive workflow.

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 complex two-step mutation with no output schema and no annotations, it covers consent, the confirmation token flow, email gating, and provider visibility. The main gap is that it does not describe what step 2 returns or how the agent should confirm successful submission to the user.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful lifecycle context: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, and confirmation is the token produced in step 1 and required in step 2.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to MPRP Calculator') and immediately states what it is not: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This makes the tool's role distinct from the calculate/enquiry sibling tools without needing to inspect them.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers and consent=true first, then call again with the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys and excludes purchase/quote use, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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