site

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency, but it contains no verb and describes no action, side effect, return value, or read-only nature. 'The criteria and any filters...' is a static label, not a description of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 concise with no redundant filler, but it is under-specified and grammatically incomplete. It is a short noun phrase rather than a clear, front-loaded operational statement, so it does not fully earn 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 and no annotations, so the description alone must explain what an agent will receive or learn by calling the tool. It only identifies the subject area and does not describe the expected outcome, response format, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving a significant gap.

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 the schema already reflects this completely. There is no parameter semantics for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 is a noun phrase rather than a statement of what the tool does, and it largely restates the name and title. It adds domain context about 'Six routes to machine-readable bank transactions' but never says whether the tool lists, compares, explains, or returns criteria and filters.

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 instead of siblings like compare_options, compare_table, or enquiry_describe. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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. It discloses that results can be filtered by a tag value, but it does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, what the default unfiltered output is, or how filtering behaves when both filterKey and filterValue are present or 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler and gives the key content fields and filtering capability. It is compact, though the opening phrase is a bit clunky and could be tightened for scanning.

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 two undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several comparison siblings, the description lacks essential context: what the output looks like, what filterKey/filterValue accept, and how this tool relates to compare_criteria and compare_table.

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% and neither parameter is explained. The description only hints that filtering is by tag value, leaving filterKey and filterValue undefined, their allowed values unknown, and the effect of zero required parameters unclear.

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 as the options within the Six routes comparison and lists the returned attributes (name, what it is best for, tags). It is clear enough, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as compare_criteria or compare_table. The only usage hint is the optional tag filter, which is implicit and not enough to route an agent to the correct tool.

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, but it only describes table content. It does not clarify output orientation, ordering, what happens when option is omitted, or any side effects. 'The full table' adds some context but is minimal.

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 wasted words and conveys the core content directly. The phrasing is slightly convoluted, but it is concise and front-loaded with the key idea.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable picture of what is returned. However, it omits behavioral specifics and sibling-tool context, so an agent still has to guess about the exact output format and when this tool is the right choice.

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 with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema: it implies the table contains all options/criteria, but 'option' semantics are already clear from the 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 states what the tool returns—a full table showing each option's value on every criterion in the Six routes comparison. This is specific and conveys the resource clearly. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like compare_criteria or compare_options, though 'full table' hints at the difference.

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 this tool versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The description does not mention alternatives or provide decision criteria. A caller must infer from tool names, which is weak support.

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. It discloses that the tool is descriptive, returns recipient/consent/confirmation details, and that the described process is free and non-binding. It stops short of explicitly stating the tool itself performs no action, but 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' strongly implies read-only behavior.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose ('Read first') and pack only essential facts: what submit_enquiry does, what it does not do, and what the tool returns. No filler or repetition.

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 explains the tool's output even without an output schema, listing returned content. It also preempts common misconceptions (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). A small gap is the lack of any pointer to sibling tools like enquiry_fields, but this is minor given the simplicity.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the empty schema fully covers the input contract.

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 and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Bank Convert' and also 'returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling comparison tools and the actual submit_enquiry 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 'Read first' is an explicit instruction to consume this tool before acting, implying it is a prerequisite to submit_enquiry. It also clarifies that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and that no quote is guaranteed, signaling this is the informational counterpart, though it doesn't explicitly contrast all sibling tools.

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 indicates the tool is a read-only inspection of enquiry fields and enumerates the returned content, but it does not mention response shape, option representation, ordering, or any potential side effects.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core scope with 'Every field' and then provides a concise list of returned attributes plus a clear directive for downstream 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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and how to use the data with submit_enquiry. Minor omissions like the exact structure of allowed options and field ordering are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; its reference to keying answers for submit_enquiry provides useful contextual framing rather than parameter documentation.

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 the tool returns every field of the Bank Convert enquiry and enumerates the specific attributes: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe 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?

The description gives practical usage guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This clearly connects the tool to a downstream workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over enquiry_describe or the compare_* 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what must be shown to the user, that submission triggers an email with a link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and the full scope of consent (contact details to up to three suppliers chosen by Bank Convert). That is unusually rich side-effect and privacy disclosure.

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 'NOT a purchase' constraint and the two-step framing are front-loaded, and the numbered steps are easy to follow. The verbatim consent sentence is long but is required legal text the agent must echo, so it earns its place; overall slightly verbose but not padded.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the step 1 return values and the step 2 outcome (email with a link the person must click). An agent has everything needed to run the flow correctly, including the consent condition and the sequencing.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that answers are keyed by field keys obtained from enquiry_fields and that the confirmation token is only used in step 2 after approval. It does not add format or validation constraints beyond the schema, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 (submit an enquiry to Bank Convert) and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which is the exact confusion an agent could have. It also ties itself to the sibling enquiry_fields by saying answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields.

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 to validate, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The when-not condition ('only if the person agrees') and the routing to enquiry_fields for keys leave nothing to inference.

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