site

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and enumerates the computed output values. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens on invalid input, though these are less critical for a calculator.

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, but it contains the redundant phrase 'calculator calculator' and lists outputs in a flat, semicolon-separated run-on structure. It earns its place overall, but the wording is awkward and could be more polished.

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 moderate-complexity calculator with no output schema, the description does a good job of indicating what the tool returns by listing the four output components and mentioning default fallback behavior. It could be more explicit about the output format, but the essentials for invoking the tool correctly are present.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds the fallback-to-defaults behavior and lists outputs, but it does not materially enrich the meaning of the parameters themselves. A baseline 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 identifies the tool as running the Australian notice of termination calculator and lists the specific values it produces (NES notice, extra week, minimum notice, applicable notice period). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like calculator_describe, but the verb 'Run' and the resource name make its role reasonably distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as calculator_describe or submit_enquiry, and it does not state prerequisites or exclusions. The only behavioral note is about missing inputs falling back to defaults, which is about invocation behavior, not usage 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals the content of the response: inputs with units, ranges, and defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. This gives an accurate expectation of what the tool returns without overpromising.

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, front-loaded sentence that captures every important aspect of the tool's purpose and content with no filler. It is concise while remaining fully informative.

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 documentation/describe tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what the returned information covers. It could marginally benefit from noting that this is a read-only description rather than a calculation, but the title and sibling context make that 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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on the documentation content rather than inputs to this 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 clearly states this tool returns information about the calculator's inputs, outputs, and assumptions, and the title reinforces it describes the calculator. It distinguishes itself from a calculation tool, though it does not explicitly name the sibling '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 usage is implied: call this when you need to understand what the calculator does, its inputs, outputs, and assumptions. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it to the 'calculate' sibling, but the describe-versus-calculate distinction is 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear this is an informational tool that 'states' and 'returns' details, and it clarifies what the underlying enquiry is not: not a purchase, not an order, not paid, not a guaranteed quote, and free. It could more explicitly say 'this tool itself is read-only,' but the informational nature is unambiguous.

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 three tight sentences with the most important guidance front-loaded in 'Read first.' Every sentence adds distinct value: 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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent the purpose, the guarantees and exclusions, and the exact content of the returned information, including recipients, consent wording, and confirmation behavior.

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 documentation burden. Schema coverage is 100% because the schema is empty, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than on 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 names a specific verb ('States plainly'), a specific resource ('submit_enquiry'), and a scope ('on Notice Period Australia'). It clearly distinguishes this informational describe tool from the action tool submit_enquiry by saying it explains what that tool does rather than performing the 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?

The opening directive 'Read first' tells the agent to use this tool before taking action, and naming submit_enquiry makes the intended context obvious. It does not enumerate all sibling alternatives such as enquiry_fields, but the primary use-before-submit guidance 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that the tool exposes every field and its metadata, and it strongly implies a read-only introspection role by directing actual submission to submit_enquiry. It could be more explicit about having no side effects, but the read-only nature is 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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what every field contains, and the second directly connects the output to the sibling submit_enquiry tool.

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 parameterless metadata lookup, the description covers what the returned data contains and how it should be used in the broader enquiry workflow. Since there is no output schema, a more explicit statement about the return shape, such as 'returns a list of field objects', would make it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is little parameter documentation needed. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds useful context by telling callers how to map returned field keys to submit_enquiry answers.

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 — the Notice Period Australia enquiry — and enumerates exactly what is exposed for every field (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It is implicitly a field-metadata lookup, but it lacks an explicit operative verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly contrast itself with 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 gives clear usage context by instructing callers to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this tool should be used to discover the expected field structure before submitting. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for the same purpose, so it stops short of a 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 behavioral burden. It discloses the two-call stateful flow, the need to reuse the same answers and confirmation token, the exact consent text, and the email-click requirement before any provider sees the enquiry. This is far more transparent than the schema alone.

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 but every clause earns its place, with the most important disclaimers front-loaded ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The Step 1/Step 2 structure makes a complex two-call flow easy to follow without unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies the step-1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the step-2 outcome (submission plus email link), and the human-consent gate. The core invocation contract is complete enough for an agent to execute the tool 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical semantics: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and matches an exact statement, and confirmation is the token from step 1 reused only after approval. This clarifies the conditional role of the optional confirmation parameter.

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 opens with a specific action and target: 'Submits an enquiry to Notice Period Australia' and immediately contrasts it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The title and body make it easy to distinguish this submission tool from sibling tools like enquiry_describe 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 two-step procedure tells the agent exactly when to call once, show the summary, then call again with the token 'only if the person agrees.' It also names enquiry_fields as the source for answer keys and explicitly says this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, which helps prevent misuse.

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