site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior — returning either the next question or the final verdict — but it does not mention side effects, state changes, error handling, or behavior for invalid choices. The 'return' wording suggests a read-like operation, yet that safety is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the inputs and the two possible outputs efficiently, and every phrase 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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the main input and output behavior, but there is no output schema and no annotations to fill gaps. It leaves unclear what the final verdict or next question looks like, how to handle invalid choices, and whether calling this tool advances any session state. It is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 compensate, and it does. It clarifies that 'question' is a question identifier and that 'choice' is the index of the chosen option, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. It could be stronger by specifying the question id format or whether the choice is 0-based, but the core semantics are conveyed.

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 a specific operation: given a question id and a choice index, return the next question or the final verdict. It names the resource and the expected output, and the title reinforces the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage context is implied: an agent should call this when the user has answered a question and needs the next step. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any mention of alternatives such as checker_start or checker_tree. This is workable but relies on inference.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that this is a question, giving no information about side effects, state initialization, required authentication, or what happens after calling. For a tool that likely starts a multi-step guide, this is a meaningful gap.

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, and the key identifying phrase 'first question' is front-loaded. It could be slightly more explicit about what calling the tool does, but as a length/structure matter it is appropriately tight.

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 should explain what an agent can expect from invoking the tool. Saying it is the 'first question' implies a return of that question, but it does not mention whether it initializes state, how to proceed to checker_answer, or any response shape. The surrounding decision-guide flow is left mostly to inference.

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 is empty, so there is no parameter behavior left to document. Per the 0-parameter baseline, the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 a decision guide, which conveys it is the entry point, but it never states an action (e.g., 'starts the guide' or 'displays the first question'). It is not a tautology, but the purpose is more implied than explicitly named.

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 phrase 'first question' implies this tool should be used at the start of the checker flow, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over checker_answer, checker_tree, or the enquiry tools. Usage is implied rather than 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does state that the tool returns the complete set of questions, options, and verdicts, which is meaningful disclosure of scope. However, it does not describe the output structure, traversal format, or whether the result is read-only, leaving notable gaps.

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, tightly written sentence that leads with the most important content ('Every question, option and verdict'). Every phrase earns its place, and no filler is present.

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 retrieval tool, the description provides a solid outline of what is returned: the entire decision tree with its questions, options, and verdicts. It would benefit from a little more detail about how the tree is structured, but the absence of parameters and the simple domain make this mostly 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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema carries no semantic burden. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning it cannot have.

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: every question, option, and verdict in the School catchment checker guide. It conveys that the tool exposes the complete decision tree, but it lacks a direct action verb and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as checker_answer or checker_start.

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 phrase 'for reasoning end to end' implies this tool should be used when an agent needs the full decision tree rather than a single step. No explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are named, so the usage guidance is only 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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the action is free, does not create a purchase or payment, does not guarantee a quote, and returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.

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 every following sentence adds a distinct, useful fact: what the tool explains, what it does not do, that it is free, and what it returns. It is appropriately sized for an explanatory 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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, exclusions, and return content. It does not describe the exact response format, but for a free-text explainer this is a minor gap rather than a completeness failure.

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 for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than on parameters, which do not 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 states a clear informational purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does, and the title reinforces that it is about starting an enquiry, not purchasing or receiving a guaranteed quote. It also distinguishes itself from the transactional sibling submit_enquiry by describing rather than performing 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?

'Read first' is an explicit directive to use this tool before acting, and the description clarifies expectations around submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative such as 'use submit_enquiry when you are ready to submit the enquiry,' so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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. It does disclose the contents of the returned data and implies a read-only operation by directing mutations to submit_enquiry. Still, it never explicitly states that no side effects occur, nor does it describe output formatting or edge cases.

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 with no wasted words: the first states what the tool exposes, and the second gives a concrete downstream action. The key information is front-loaded and every 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter read-only introspection tool, and the description is complete for that complexity. It explains what will be returned and how the returned field keys are meant to be used with submit_enquiry, which is enough given no output schema exists.

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 takes zero parameters and the empty schema is fully covered. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter behavior; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 tool's resource: every field of the Catchment Checker enquiry, and enumerates the data it exposes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', and it does not contrast itself with the sibling enquiry_describe.

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 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies this tool is a prerequisite for submitting answers and should be used to obtain field keys. This is useful context but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion, or comparison with alternatives like enquiry_describe.

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 and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, the second-step submission, the email with a required click link, and the fact that providers see nothing before that click. It also quotes the exact consent wording.

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 section earns its place: the non-purchase caveat is front-loaded, Steps 1 and 2 are clearly ordered, and the exact consent text is included because it must be shown to the person. No filler or repetition beyond what is operationally necessary.

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, the description explains what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what triggers Step 2, and the post-submission email/link behavior. It references the related enquiry_fields tool for answer keys, so an agent has everything needed to call 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema by explaining the required ordering of answers+consent first, the source of the confirmation token, and that Step 2 must resend the same answers, justifying a 4.

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 verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Catchment Checker,' and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), plus the title identifies human providers. This distinguishes it from the sibling checkout/quote-like actions even without naming them.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: use Step 1 first to validate and obtain a confirmation token, then Step 2 only after the person agrees. It excludes purchases and guaranteed quotes, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields, though it references enquiry_fields for keys.

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