site

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and that output includes four labeled figures. It does not explicitly state that the tool is side-effect-free or describe calculation assumptions, but the calculator nature makes this less critical.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the fallback behavior included. The redundant 'calculator calculator' and the semicolon-separated output list slightly reduce clarity, but it is still compact.

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 lists the return values and fallback behavior, which is necessary because there is no output schema or annotations. It remains somewhat incomplete: it does not explain output format, units, or how the input parameters map to the tax rates, and no usage example is provided.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how sbr, income, status, or revenue influence the calculation beyond referencing their documented defaults.

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 a clear action ('Run') and resource (UAE corporate tax calculator), and it enumerates the computed outputs. It is distinguishable from sibling calculator_describe and enquiry tools even without naming them, though the duplicate 'calculator calculator' is a minor wording defect.

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 use case is implied: use this tool when you need to run the UAE corporate tax calculation. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to calculator_describe, enquiry_describe, or submit_enquiry.

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 burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It does not mention response format or side effects, but for a read-only describe tool, the disclosed content is sufficient.

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 purpose and enumerates the content categories without redundancy. Every clause 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 describe tool, this is complete: the agent knows it receives an explanation of inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There are no hidden requirements or missing usage constraints.

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 schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; it explains what the documented calculator's inputs cover.

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 exactly what the tool does: it describes the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. This clearly distinguishes calculator_describe from its calculate sibling, which actually performs the computation.

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 the tool is for understanding the calculator, but it never explicitly says when to call it instead of calculate. There is no exclusion or conditional guidance, so the agent must infer the use case from the name and sibling list.

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. It discloses that the tool is read-only (nothing is bought or paid), that it returns specific information (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation process), and that the underlying enquiry is free with no guaranteed quote. This goes beyond a simple 'describes submit_enquiry' and explains the tool's output and the nature of the service. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a describe tool these are not critical. Slight gap: it doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects, but the content implies it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the critical instruction 'Read first.' It then states the purpose plainly, clarifies what it is not, and enumerates the return contents. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy. The title also adds clarity without being excessively long.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the nature of the enquiry (free, human-provided, no guarantee), and what information the user will receive. The description covers all necessary context for an agent to decide to call this tool and to understand the result. Nothing essential 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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately compensates by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only relevant information an agent needs. No further parameter explanation is required.

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 verb ('read first', 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and a clear resource (UAE Corporate Tax Calculator). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly contrasting with the actual submission tool and clarifying it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. The title reinforces the purpose. This is unmistakably a describe tool for 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 instruction 'Read first' clearly implies this should be used before submitting an enquiry, providing contextual timing. It also clarifies what the tool is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote), which helps agents avoid misusing it as a transaction tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative describe tools like calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over those siblings. The guidance is clear enough but not exhaustive.

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 discloses the return contents and the field-key mapping requirement for later submission. It does not explicitly claim read-only, but the zero-parameter, enumeration-oriented nature makes that implicit, and there is no contradiction.

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 efficient sentences: the first front-loads the complete output contents, the second states downstream usage. No filler, and each 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is complete. It identifies the domain, lists every returned attribute, notes optionality and allowed options, and connects to submit_enquiry. Nothing needed 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?

There are no input parameters, so per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description adds the only relevant semantic tie: the returned field keys are what should be used to key submit_enquiry 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 names a specific resource ('UAE Corporate Tax Calculator enquiry') and a specific output ('key, label, type, whether required, help text and allowed options'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling describe tools by scope: it enumerates fields rather than describing the calculator or 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?

It gives clear usage context: retrieve the field definitions, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or contrast with sibling describe tools, 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 full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the data, and the exact consent scope (up to three agents, contact directly, opt-out). This is far beyond what the schema reveals.

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 critical disambiguation ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then structures the rest as Step 1 / Step 2. The embedded consent text is long but is the literal agreement the caller must confirm, so it 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the two-call protocol, the consent semantics, the post-submission email-link gate, and the provider-disclosure scope. Nothing required to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' is keyed by field key from the enquiry_fields sibling, and 'confirmation' is the token from step 1 used only after approval. It clarifies the inter-parameter dependency (token required only in step 2) that 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry') and immediately disambiguates the outcome ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which is exactly what an agent would otherwise confuse with a checkout or quote tool. Distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate and enquiry_fields by describing the two-step submission 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?

Explicitly defines the two-step sequence: step 1 with answers+consent to validate and get a token, step 2 only after the person approves, adding the token. It gives the precise conditions for each call and the gating requirement (person must agree), 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.