site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a solid job: it discloses the €600 weekly pay cap, the '2 per year + 1' weeks formula, the lump-sum output, and the default-fallback behavior. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 and front-loads the action. The minor typo 'calculator calculator' is a small blemish but does not hurt comprehension.

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 simple 2-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers the essential computation rules, the cap, and fallback behavior. It doesn't specify the exact output structure, but that is less critical for a calculator 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining the weekly-pay cap applied to weeklyPay and the formula relating years to weeks of pay, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 concrete action ('Run the calculator') and specifies the resource ('Statutory redundancy calculator') along with the core calculations it produces. It is clear enough for an agent to know the tool performs redundancy lump-sum calculations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 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?

The description implies its use case: when a statutory redundancy amount needs to be computed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, such as calculator_describe for mere explanation rather than calculation.

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 disclosure burden. It openly says the tool returns inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, making its informational, read-only nature clear. It does not detail response format or side effects, but none are expected for a describe tool.

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 phrase with no filler, listing the three relevant content categories. It loses a point for being a sentence fragment that slightly overlaps with the title rather than stating the tool's action directly.

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, documentation-style tool, the description covers the key things an agent needs: what the tool returns and the scope of the calculator. It could be more complete by mentioning that actual calculations belong to the calculate sibling and by describing the return format, but these are minor 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain; per rubric the baseline is 4. The description also adds useful context about the calculator's parameter characteristics (units, ranges, defaults), even though those are not tool 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 identifies the specific resource (the Statutory redundancy calculator) and enumerates the content returned: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as calculate or 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 intended use is implied: an agent needing to know the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, or underlying tables can call this tool. However, it never states when to use this instead of calculate or enquiry_describe, 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, and it delivers: it states the tool is non-transactional ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid'), free, guarantees no quote, and documents exactly what the tool returns. This is exemplary transparency for a meta-informational tool.

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 structure is well front-loaded with 'Read first,' but the description repeats content already present in the title: 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' mirrors 'Nothing is bought... no quote is guaranteed.' The description earns its place overall, but could be tightened by one clause.

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 0-parameter informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it conveys the tool's nature, what underlying operation it documents, and the contents of its return value. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to add; the description correctly focuses on what the tool itself returns rather than inputs.

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 purpose: it is an informational tool that explains what submit_enquiry does on Redundancy Calculator Ireland, and lists what it returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation mechanism). This clearly distinguishes it from its siblings — it is the 'describe' companion to submit_enquiry, mirroring the calculator_describe pattern.

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' gives clear context that this tool should be consulted before engaging with the enquiry workflow. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the leading instruction is a strong usage signal.

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 add value by disclosing which field attributes are returned and how keys map to submit_enquiry. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or note edge cases (e.g., empty field set). No contradiction, since annotations are absent.

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 that front-loads the core resource ('Every field of the Redundancy Calculator Ireland enquiry'), then lists the attributes and the follow-up action in order. No filler or 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, what the attributes are, and how the result is used with submit_enquiry. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the sibling enquiry_describe, which is a minor omission for a tool this simple.

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 meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what each returned field attribute represents and how the keys are used downstream, which helps the agent interpret and subsequently use the output.

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 resource — the fields of the Redundancy Calculator Ireland enquiry — and enumerates the exact content returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It partially distinguishes itself by referencing sibling submit_enquiry, though it never explicitly contrasts 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?

Implied usage: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' conveys the workflow the output feeds into, so an agent can infer this tool is meant for discovering submission keys. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like enquiry_describe, and no exclusions are stated.

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 and does so: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, that up to three providers receive the details, and the exact consent scope. This is unusually rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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-loads the crucial 'not a purchase' disambiguation and then walks the two steps in order, so it is easy to scan. It loses a point for re-quoting the full consent sentence verbatim, which is already present in the schema's consent description and is a sizable block of duplicated text.

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 no output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submission plus a verification email), which is exactly what an agent needs to chain the calls. For a nested-object, multi-step tool this is complete enough to act on.

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, but the description goes further by explaining how the three parameters interlock across the two calls — which values belong to step 1 versus step 2, where the answer keys come from (enquiry_fields), and that consent=true is required in both calls. That workflow-level meaning is not in the schema field 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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Redundancy Calculator Ireland') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the sibling it depends on ('field key from enquiry_fields'), letting an agent place it among calculate/enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe without opening a 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 two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only after the person approves, with the confirmation token. The gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the required ordering are spelled out, 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.