site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and lists the output quantities, but it does not mention tax-year assumptions, accepted period values, or side effects/state changes.

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-loads the action and outputs before the fallback note. It is slightly redundant with 'calculator' appearing twice in the first clause, but there is no filler or unnecessary 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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema calculator, the description covers the operation, the outputs, and default behavior. The main gap is the lack of explicit period options and rate/tax-year assumptions, but the definition is still adequate for straightforward invocation.

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 schema already documents the two parameters. The description adds context about defaults and weekly assessment, but it does not explain the allowed values of period or how pay is normalized. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and names the resource (PRSI calculator Class A), then enumerates the computed outputs: weekly gross pay, employee/employer PRSI per week, and employee PRSI per year. It is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

The description implies use for calculating PRSI values, and the fallback-defaults note hints at how missing inputs are handled. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over calculator_describe or the enquiry_* siblings, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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 does state what the tool returns: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. However, it does not explicitly say this is a read-only/introspection operation or clarify that it does not perform calculations.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the key content areas: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no redundancy or 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It is missing only an explicit statement about being an informational/read-only tool and a hint that it complements rather than replaces the calculation 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 the baseline is 4. The description's mention of units, ranges, and defaults refers to the content of the described calculator rather than to invocation parameters, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to document.

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 title and description clearly identify this as a tool that describes the PRSI calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and underlying tables. The purpose is specific and distinct from a calculation tool, though the description relies on the tool name rather than explicitly contrasting with the sibling 'calculate' tool.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'calculate' tool or the enquiry tools. Usage is only implied by the name and title, with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an informational tool that 'States' and 'returns' content, and it details what information is included: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It also clarifies that the underlying enquiry is free and non-binding.

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, front-loaded with the important 'Read first' directive, and every sentence earns its place: what the tool explains, the key caveats, and what the response contains. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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 description helper with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, the behavior of submit_enquiry, and the contents of the return value. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state that this tool itself is side-effect-free or map out relationships to all sibling tools, but those are not critical for correct usage.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the description needs to add little parameter-level meaning. It appropriately focuses on describing what the call returns rather than inventing placeholder parameter guidance.

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 tool's job: to explain what submit_enquiry does, including that it starts an enquiry, involves no purchase or payment, does not guarantee a quote, and is free. It also names the sibling tool it describes and enumerates the content returned, so there is no ambiguity about its purpose.

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' and the phrase 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' give clear contextual guidance: this is the tool to consult before using submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, nor does it say exactly when not to use this tool, 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, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals an introspection/read-only operation and describes the returned field attributes, including the conditional 'where there are any' for options. However, it never explicitly states the output format (e.g., list of field objects) or that the tool has no side effects, so some behavioral detail is left implicit.

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 with no filler. The first sentence specifies the resource and its content; the second gives a direct action for using the result. The structure is scannable and 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?

The description is sufficient for a metadata-listing tool with no input parameters and no output schema: it names the resource, lists the returned attributes, and tells the agent how to route the result to submit_enquiry. A minor gap is not explicitly stating whether the result is an array or a keyed object, though 'keyed by field key' partially implies this.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the zero-parameter baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context about what a 'field' contains, which helps the agent understand the metadata returned rather than any input 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 clearly identifies the resource ('Every field of the PRSI Calculator enquiry') and enumerates what is included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is distinguishable from submit_enquiry via the final sentence, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns' and does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or 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?

The sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives concrete workflow guidance: use this tool to learn the field keys before submitting an enquiry. It does not state when to avoid this tool or choose a sibling instead, but this connection to submit_enquiry provides clear 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses validation behavior, return of summary/consent line/token, the email-with-link requirement before provider sees it, and the exact consent statement. This covers the important side effects and flow.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and exclusions, then numbered steps and the consent text. No filler; each sentence carries operational meaning.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still explains both call steps, expected returns, the email link behavior, and the consent condition. An agent has everything needed to execute the two-step flow 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, confirmation is the step-1 token, and consent must be the exact quoted agreement. This goes beyond the schema's generic type descriptions.

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 ('Submits an enquiry'), the target resource ('PRSI Calculator'), and explicitly excludes purchase/quote interpretations. The two-step workflow and reference to enquiry_fields distinguish it from sibling describe/calculate 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?

Provides an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 call with answers and consent=true, then step 2 after user approval with confirmation token. It also states it is not a purchase or quote and points to enquiry_fields for valid answer keys.

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