site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior—returning either the next question or a final verdict—but it does not mention whether the flow state is mutated, what happens for invalid choices, or any session/state requirements.

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, information-dense sentence. The title and description work together without repetition or filler, and the key input/output behavior 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?

Adequate for a two-parameter tool: it names both inputs and describes the possible return. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it falls short of fully describing the response shape, error behavior, or what the caller should do with the returned next question/final verdict.

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 0% description coverage, so the description's clarification that `question` is a question id and `choice` is the chosen option's index is essential. It adds meaning beyond the raw property names and types, though it omits details like how to obtain valid question ids or bounds beyond minimum 0.

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 operation: given a question id and a choice index, return the next question or final verdict. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, which have different roles in the flow.

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: use this when a user has answered a question and the flow should advance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, what prerequisites exist (e.g., starting with checker_start), or how it relates to alternatives.

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 says the tool is 'the first question' but does not state what happens when invoked—whether it returns a question, initializes a session, or produces any output. The description is a static characterization rather than a disclosure of behavior, leaving side effects and return behavior unexplained.

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 short sentence, so it is compact. However, it is on the edge of under-specification, omitting an action verb and any behavioral detail. It is not overly verbose, but it does not fully earn its place as a complete tool definition.

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 tool is simple (no parameters), but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention return values, the overall decision guide flow, or how this first question connects to checker_answer or checker_tree. An agent would be left guessing at the interaction pattern beyond 'first question.' The sibling names hint at a flow, but the description itself is incomplete for a confident 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema and description have nothing to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented 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 tool as 'The first question of the Exit readiness checker decision guide,' which names a specific resource and its position in a sequence. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, so it does not explicitly state an action like 'starts the guide' or 'returns the first question.' It is distinguishable from siblings by the word 'first,' but the lack of a clear verb makes the purpose slightly vague.

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 alternatives. The sibling list includes checker_answer and checker_tree, which likely belong to the same flow, but the description does not say 'use this to begin' or 'use instead of...'. The 'first question' wording weakly implies sequencing, but no explicit usage direction or exclusions 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes content rather than behavior. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the output structure looks like, or how the tree is presented to the agent.

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 concise sentence with no filler. 'Every question, option and verdict' is information-dense, though 'for reasoning end to end' is somewhat vague and could have been replaced with a more concrete statement about output or use.

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 content-retrieval tool, the description conveys the main content and purpose sufficiently. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the output format and relationship to sibling decision-tree tools unspecified, so an agent must infer some context.

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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and no information is missing in this dimension.

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 entire decision tree of the Exit readiness checker, including every question, option, and verdict. It distinguishes itself from step-oriented siblings like checker_start and checker_answer by signaling whole-tree content, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'return'.

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 on when to use this tool versus checker_start or checker_answer. The phrase 'for reasoning end to end' implies whole-traversal use, but there is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives.

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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses key traits: the enquiry is free, no payment is made, no quote is guaranteed, and it returns who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This goes well beyond a simple 'describes' statement, though it does not explicitly address whether the tool itself has side effects (e.g., whether it sends anything).

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and uses short, punchy sentences that each convey a distinct fact. There is slight redundancy with the title (both mention 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'), but the repetition is justified as a reinforcing safety message. Overall it is tight and easily scannable.

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 0-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what it explains, what the user can expect, and what the returned explanation contains. It could more explicitly connect to the wider enquiry flow (e.g., 'use before enquiry_fields'), but 'Read first' plus naming submit_enquiry provides enough context for correct 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?

The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter definitions to clarify. The description instead focuses on return content, which is appropriate here since parameter semantics are irrelevant.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Sellable Score.' The verb 'states' plus the resource 'what submit_enquiry does' makes the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings by clarifying it is not the actual submission tool and that no purchase or guaranteed quote is involved.

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 phrase 'Read first' gives a clear usage signal: this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), which helps distinguish it from purchase or quote tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or provide exclusion conditions for checker_* or enquiry_fields.

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 communicates the informational payload and implies a read-only schema lookup, and it explains how the output feeds submit_enquiry. However, it never explicitly states that the tool has no side effects or what the response structure looks like.

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 field contents are front-loaded and the workflow linkage is placed at the end, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to use it with submit_enquiry. It omits an explicit verb and response format, but these gaps are low-risk given the simple, no-input context.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds practical meaning by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use when submitting 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 identifies the resource (Sellable Score enquiry fields) and precisely enumerates what is exposed: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit operational verb like 'list' or 'get', which prevents a top score, but it clearly differentiates from submit_enquiry by explaining how the data is meant to be used.

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 final sentence gives concrete workflow guidance: use this tool's field keys when passing answers to submit_enquiry. It provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings such as enquiry_describe or checker_start.

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 well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/confirmation token, that step 2 actually submits, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and that consent means up to three advisers will contact the person directly. No annotation contradiction, and it adds the consent semantics and data-flow that no structured field supplies.

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-loaded with the most important distinction (not a purchase) and organized as Step 1 / Step 2, which matches the call flow. The full consent text is quoted verbatim in both the description and the consent param schema, a small redundancy, but every other 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 describe returns — and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token). Combined with the consent definition, email verification flow, and two-step gating, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the floor, but the description goes further: it ties 'answers' to keys from enquiry_fields, states consent must be true, and explains that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and required only on the second call. That adds sequencing semantics the schema alone doesn't 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (submit an enquiry to Sellable Score) and immediately draws the boundary that it is 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields without opening any 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 with the triggering condition for each call: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only after the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also states the dependency on enquiry_fields for the field keys, so the ordering of sibling calls is unambiguous.

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