site

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says criteria/filters are compared and adds the opaque phrase 'on what is checkable comparison' without explaining what that means, what the output looks like, or whether any side effects or permissions are involved.

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 but poorly structured and under-specified. The phrase 'compared on what is checkable comparison' is redundant and confusing, so the single sentence does not earn its place as a clear explanation.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context, and it is insufficient. It fails to explain the purpose of the comparison, the meaning of 'checkable comparison', or what result the agent can expect, making the tool hard to invoke confidently.

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 with zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-level information, but no parameters exist for it to clarify.

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 that criteria and filters are compared, which names a verb and resource, but the phrasing is vague and circular ('compared on what is checkable comparison') and does not specify what the comparison yields or how it differs from the sibling compare tools. It is a vague purpose rather than a clearly actionable one.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use compare_criteria versus compare_options, compare_table, or the enquiry tools. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which sibling is appropriate.

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 mentions comparison fields and optional filtering but does not describe return format, ordering, side effects, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 and not overly long, but the phrasing is awkward ('what is checkable comparison') and the structure could be clearer. It earns its place but not elegantly.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotation support, the description should clarify what the tool returns, what filterKey means, and how it differs from sibling compare tools. Those details are missing, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions filtering by tag value, which plausibly maps to filterValue, but filterKey is left unexplained and no valid values are given.

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 resource (options for getting an SR&ED claim prepared), the action (compared), and the comparison fields (name, best-for, tags). It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_criteria or compare_table.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'optionally filtered by a tag value' gives a usage hint, but no when-not conditions or sibling-tool distinctions 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It hints that the tool returns a full comparison table, but it does not state what happens when option is omitted, what the table contains, or whether this is a pure read operation.

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, which is good, but the single sentence is tangled and redundant, repeating 'comparison' and 'compare' in confusing ways. It is not cleanly structured or easily parsable.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the full-table result and how the option parameter affects it. The current text is too vague to allow an agent to confidently invoke the tool or differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 already documents the only parameter, option, with 'one option's name, else all,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds little beyond that and does not clarify accepted option values or how 'all' behaves.

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 refers to 'each option's value on every criterion' and 'the full table,' so it gestures at a comparison resource. But the phrasing 'compared on what is checkable comparison' is garbled, and it does not clearly state the verb or distinguish itself from compare_criteria and compare_options.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call compare_table instead of compare_criteria or compare_options. The optional option parameter suggests a way to narrow the result, but the description never explains this or any selection 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavior: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free; and it returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It stops short of explicitly stating that this tool itself has no side effects, but 'states plainly' and 'returns' make the informational nature evident.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the imperative 'Read first', the core semantics, and the output summary. It is front-loaded and contains no 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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the linked action does, what the user receives, and what the tool returns. A more explicit statement that this call itself performs no submission or commitment would make it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything; no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the output content rather than parameter meaning.

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 specifies a precise purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on SR&ED Finder, rather than performing the submission itself. It clearly distinguishes this describe-tool from the submit_enquiry sibling by framing itself as the 'read first' companion.

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 instruction 'Read first' explicitly signals when to use this tool: before taking action with submit_enquiry. It does not enumerate alternative tools like compare_options or enquiry_fields, but the placement and framing make the intended use clear.

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 implies a read-only metadata retrieval that returns all fields, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it describe error behavior or output structure. Adequate for a simple query tool, but not rich.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second sentence adds the direct usage link. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description covers what is returned and how to use it with submit_enquiry. It lacks an explicit statement of the response shape (e.g., array vs map), but the listed attributes and the pointer to field keys give the agent enough to proceed confidently.

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 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so there is no parameter burden. The description still adds semantic value by explaining that returned field keys are the keys to use for answers to submit_enquiry, which goes beyond the bare schema.

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 what the tool returns: every field of the SR&ED Finder enquiry, and enumerates the attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like submit_enquiry, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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 actionable usage context by instructing the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly say when this tool is preferred over sibling tools like enquiry_describe or compare_* tools, leaving the selection rationale mostly implied.

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 it delivers: it discloses validation on step 1, the confirmation-token gating on step 2, the side effect of sending an email, and the click-before-any-provider-sees-it condition. It also defines consent with the exact user-facing text.

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 the purpose and exclusions, then flows linearly through the two steps. This is multi-sentence, but every sentence carries necessary procedural or consent information for a non-obvious two-call 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description names the key return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and tells the agent what to show and when. It also covers prerequisites through the enquiry_fields reference and downstream behavior (email link) sufficiently for a 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 schema already covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational semantics by specifying that step 1 uses answers and consent without the confirmation token, while step 2 must reuse the same answers plus the token; however, the schema itself already supplies the consent text and token provenance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to SR&ED Finder' and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or quote. The two-step submission flow and the reference to enquiry_fields make it clear that this is the submission action rather than the describe/compare/field-listing sibling 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call once with answers and consent to validate, show the person the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees. It also states hard exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and links to enquiry_fields for key construction.

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