site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully states that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, but it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or output formatting. For a calculator, this is partial but acceptable.

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 purpose, but it contains a typo ('calculator calculator') and a disjointed semicolon-separated list. It is not overly verbose, but structure and polish are below what a high-quality definition should have.

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 schema documents all inputs, and the description lists the expected output fields and the default-fallback behavior. Since there is no output schema, this is reasonably complete for a simple calculator, though a concrete example or output format hint would improve it further.

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 already fully documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond mentioning defaults generally, so it meets the schema-driven baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Run') and the resource (SR&ED investment tax credit calculator), and lists the computed output figures. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like calculator_describe, but its role as a calculation tool is 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculator_describe or enquiry tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and title, not 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate that the tool concerns the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions, which implies a descriptive, read-only tool. However, it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed, what the tool returns, or any 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?

One concise sentence that efficiently enumerates all three content areas: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. Every part of the sentence earns its place, and the key topics are 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 parameterless descriptive tool, this description is largely sufficient: it tells the agent what information the tool covers. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that the tool takes no parameters and by clarifying the output format, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear content scope.

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 on the description. The description's talk of 'inputs this calculator takes' refers to the calculator being described, not the tool's own parameters, and while slightly ambiguous, it does not harm invocation since no parameters exist.

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 (SR&ED investment tax credit calculator) and the tool's content: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is not a tautology and is clearly about describing the calculator, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'calculate'. The name and description imply it is for understanding the calculator rather than running calculations, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; the operation is free. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. This is strong for a describe-style tool, though it does not address side effects or permissions.

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 'Read first,' immediately followed by the tool's explanatory role, key caveats, and return contents. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the agent enough to know what the tool returns and why it matters. Given the simple, parameterless nature of the tool, the description is complete for correct selection and 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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior; it instead focuses on the return value and conceptual context, which is appropriate for a parameterless helper 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 states a specific purpose: it is the 'Read first' tool that plainly explains what submit_enquiry does on the SR&ED Claim Calculator. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like calculate and submit_enquiry itself by positioning it as the descriptive prerequisite rather than the action.

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 imperative 'Read first' explicitly signals when to use this tool: before using submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what an enquiry is not (not a purchase, not guaranteed, free), which helps prevent misuse. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives beyond submit_enquiry or state when not to use other siblings.

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 a metadata/read-style tool that exposes field definitions and does not suggest any side effect; the content list also conveys what the agent will receive. It could be more explicit about read-only status or output format, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool the behavior is well implied.

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, no filler. The enumeration is front-loaded, and the downstream usage note is placed second.

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-input metadata listing with no output schema, this description is complete: it lists what fields are returned and how to use them. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema needs no elaboration. The description adds value by explaining how the returned field keys are meant to be used with submit_enquiry, which is the only parameter-related context an agent needs.

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 SR&ED Claim Calculator enquiry—and enumerates the exact field metadata returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns,' so it stops short of the crispest purpose statement, but it is unambiguous and distinct from submit_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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives a concrete downstream use case and tells the agent why the keys matter. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of calculator_describe or enquiry_describe, but the context is clear enough.

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 richly. It discloses that the tool validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that a second call is required, that the person must receive and click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry, and exactly what consent means. This is far beyond the minimal mutation indication.

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 long but every sentence earns its place given the two-step stateful flow. It front-loads the core action and the most important caveat ('NOT a purchase'), then lays out step 1, step 2, and the consent requirement without redundancy. The quoted consent text is necessary because it is the exact semantic contract for the consent parameter.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool: two-step submission, human involvement, consent requirements, and an email confirmation link. The description covers all of it, including what the agent must show the person and when the second call is permitted. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful context: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent maps to an exact quoted agreement, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This enriches the bare schema definitions and clarifies the relationship between the two required/optional 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 states a specific action ('submits an enquiry'), names the resource (SR&ED Claim Calculator / human providers), and clarifies the two-step nature. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote, which prevents a common misinterpretation and separates it conceptually from sibling calculator 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 explicit step-by-step usage: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 with the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It also tells the agent to show the summary and consent line to the person. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'calculate' for when-not-to-use, but the 'NOT a purchase' warning and reference to enquiry_fields provide helpful boundaries.

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