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 does disclose fallback-to-defaults behavior and enumerates the output categories, which is useful. However, it doesn't state that this is a pure calculation with no side effects, nor does it explain any calculation assumptions or limitations.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's name and lists outputs and the fallback behavior. The redundant 'calculator calculator' is a clarity defect that prevents a 5, but overall the description is concise and to the point.

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's list of output names helps, but the return format and units are unspecified. For example, 'service' lacks an explicit unit (years vs months), 'party' possible values beyond the default are not documented, and edge cases are not mentioned. For a 4-parameter optional-input calculator, the description 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% — every parameter has a description, default, and valid range. The tool description adds the fallback-to-defaults rule but no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Run') and resource ('Irish statutory notice calculator') and lists the four computed outputs, which makes the tool's purpose identifiable. However, the phrase 'calculator calculator' is redundant, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling describe tools like 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calculator_describe or the enquiry tools. The only usage-related note is that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, which is a behavioral detail rather than a selection criterion.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is an informational tool returning documentation-style content rather than performing a calculation. It does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe the format or structure of the returned documentation.

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 with no filler, front-loading the key content and adding useful specifics such as units, ranges, and defaults. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema describe tool, the description covers the essential content categories an agent needs to understand what the tool offers. It does not explain how the returned information is structured or how this tool relates to calculate, but those are minor gaps given the tool's informational nature.

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 description need not document tool parameters. The mention of inputs with units, ranges, and defaults clearly refers to the calculator being described, not to call arguments, which avoids confusion.

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 a describe/documentation tool for the Irish statutory notice calculator and lists the content it covers: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, but the resource and purpose are evident.

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: an agent needing the calculator's input, output, assumption, or table details would use this tool. However, the description does not state when to prefer it over calculate or enquiry_describe, nor does it suggest sequencing such as reading this before calling calculate.

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. It discloses that the tool returns details about who receives the enquiry, consent wording, and confirmation method. It also clarifies that using the workflow involves no purchase, no guaranteed quote, and no cost. It doesn't explicitly state that calling this describe tool itself has zero side effects, but the content makes that sufficiently 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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. 'Read first' is a compelling lead, followed by precise details about the action and return content. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded.

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, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what submit_enquiry does, what the user receives, and the key caveats (free, no commitment, no guaranteed quote). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to call it and understand its output.

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 meaningful context about what the tool does and returns, compensating for the empty schema. There are no parameters to document, and the description handles the tool's purpose well.

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 ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Notice Period Ireland'), and the title clarifies the domain ('an ENQUIRY with a human, not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_enquiry (which performs the action) and calculation 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 opening 'Read first' explicitly signals when to use this tool: before taking action, to understand submit_enquiry. It names the target tool and explains what the user gets. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like enquiry_fields or calculator_describe, but the context is clear enough for an agent to use it appropriately.

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 explaining behavior. It does so by enumerating exactly what fields are returned and even notes conditional content ('the allowed options where there are any'). The read-only nature is implied by describing field metadata rather than any mutation, and no side effects are suggested.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every part earns its place. The first sentence defines the output shape, and the second connects it to the next action without any 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 metadata listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the domain, the fields included in the output, and how the output should be consumed. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool and use its result 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. It still adds helpful context by telling the agent that the returned keys are to be used as answer keys for submit_enquiry, which is more useful than the empty 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('the Notice Period Ireland enquiry') and the content of the returned data: keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and options. It stops short of a fully explicit verb like 'Returns' or 'Lists,' and it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'enquiry_describe', so it loses the top score.

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: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells an agent how to use the output in a downstream call. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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 and does so thoroughly. It discloses the consent requirement, the two-call side-effect flow, the confirmation token, the email with a click link, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked.

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 sentence contributes: purpose, exclusions, step one, approval condition, step two, and post-submission behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before the procedural detail.

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 the two-step consent flow and the absence of an output schema, this description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains what step one returns, what step two requires, the consent wording, the email action, and the provider visibility condition.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that answers must come keyed from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true in both calls, and that the confirmation token is produced by step one and used to complete submission.

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 concrete action: submits an enquiry to Notice Period Ireland, and immediately clarifies what it is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). The title reinforces the two-step submission to human providers, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from the sibling describe/calculate/fields 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 gives an explicit two-step calling protocol: first validate and obtain a token, then resubmit only after the person agrees. It also states when not to use the tool (not a purchase or quote) and references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, so the agent knows how this tool fits with its siblings.

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