site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and lists what the calculation covers, but it omits details such as how extended-day input changes results or what the returned output structure looks like.

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 brief, front-loads the outputs, and separates the fallback rule into a second sentence. The typo 'calculator calculator' is minor and slightly distracts, but the structure remains efficient.

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 tool is moderately complex with five optional parameters and no output schema. The description compensates reasonably by listing the four result categories and mentioning default fallback behavior, though it does not specify exact return formatting or units.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only the general note that missing inputs fall back to defaults, which is helpful but does not deepen understanding of individual 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 clearly identifies the tool as running an HGV drivers' hours calculator and lists four concrete outputs it produces. It is distinct from sibling tools like calculator_describe, though the repeated word 'calculator' and lack of explicit sibling differentiation prevent a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus calculator_describe or the enquiry tools. It states a fallback behavior for missing inputs but never explains the intended scenario or selection criteria.

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 burden. It discloses the scope of returned content (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) but does not state whether the tool is purely informational/read-only or how the information is presented. This is adequate 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly what the tool covers with no filler or repetition. Every clause carries informational weight.

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 describe tool, the description gives adequate context about what information will be returned and the scope of the description. It does not explain the return format, but given the low complexity and empty schema, this is a minor omission.

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 input schema, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description's mention of calculator inputs is about the calculator being described, not the tool's own inputs, and adds useful context about units, ranges, and 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 clearly identifies the tool as providing information about the calculator: its inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. This distinguishes it from likely calculation tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 is implied: an agent would call this when it needs to understand the calculator's inputs, outputs, or assumptions before using it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use versus alternatives like calculate or enquiry 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 disclosure burden and does it well: it states that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also discloses the content of the return (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), although it does not explicitly mark the tool as read-only.

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 brief and front-loads the most important instruction ('Read first') and the core clarification about what submission really means. The sentences are compact, though the 'Also returns' clause is a bit compressed.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the essential context an agent needs: the nature of the enquiry, the absence of payment/quote guarantees, and the content returned. It could add an explicit statement about the tool's own output, but it is largely complete for a zero-parameter explainer.

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 adds useful semantic context about what the submission entails and what information is returned, compensating fully for the empty 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 names a specific verb ('states plainly'), a resource ('what submit_enquiry does on HGV Hours Calculator'), and distinguishes it from the actual submission tool by clarifying that no purchase or quote is involved. It clearly positions enquiry_describe as the explanatory companion to submit_enquiry among the 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?

'Read first' explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool, before using submit_enquiry. It does not spell out exclusions relative to calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, but the positioning is clear enough for routing.

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 disclosure burden. It transparently states the content scope and the conditional 'where there are any' for options, but says nothing about return structure, whether the field list is static or dynamic, or other operational behavior. Adequate 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the content scope and closed with a practical usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place with 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, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description covers what it returns, the fields included, and how to use the result downstream. The only small gap is not specifying the response format, and the boundary with enquiry_describe remains implicit rather than explicit.

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 schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantic gap for the description to fill, meriting the baseline 4. The mention of field keys is relevant to submit_enquiry's parameters, not this tool's own.

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 (HGV Hours Calculator enquiry fields) and enumerates the exact content returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and its boundary against the similar sibling enquiry_describe/calculator_describe is only implied, so it doesn't reach 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 second sentence gives actionable guidance: answers passed to submit_enquiry must be keyed by the field keys from this tool. This clearly establishes when the tool is needed, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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 thoroughly: it discloses validation, the two-step handshake, the consent line, the confirmation token, the email link, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. Nothing about the behavioral contract is hidden.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose, and the two-step workflow is clearly numbered and front-loaded with the most important disambiguation ('NOT a purchase'). It avoids filler while covering all necessary information.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a nontrivial two-step flow, the description is complete: it explains what step 1 returns, what the agent should show the person, what triggers step 2, and what happens after submission. An agent has enough context to call it correctly in sequence.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and matches a specific consent line, and the confirmation token is the one returned in step 1. This clarifies how the parameters relate to each other across the two steps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submits') and names the exact resource ('an enquiry to HGV Hours Calculator'), while immediately distinguishing itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote. This clearly separates it from the sibling calculator and enquiry 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 guidance: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees with the confirmation token. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like enquiry_fields, but the workflow is concrete enough for correct invocation.

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