site

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 the key behavioral trait of fallback to documented defaults for missing inputs, and enumerates the outputs produced. However, it does not mention side effects (though likely pure), error behavior, or any constraints such as value ranges. For a calculator, the listed outputs and default behavior provide moderate transparency, but more could be said about edge cases or return format.

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 starts with the action and then lists the outputs. It is compact with no wasted words. The minor redundancy 'calculator calculator' is a slight stylistic flaw but does not impede comprehension.

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 9 parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the computed results. It also clarifies the default-fallback behavior. While it does not describe the exact return structure or handle invalid input scenarios, it is reasonably complete for a straightforward calculator tool.

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 each of the 9 parameters already has a description and default in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as units, relationships, or constraints. Thus the baseline of 3 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Run') and a specific resource ('HMO mortgage calculator'), followed by a precise list of computed outputs (all-in interest rate, monthly payment variants, arrangement fee). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, such as when to use calculator_describe instead. The only usage hint is about missing inputs falling back to defaults, which is a parameter behavior, not a selection criterion.

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 present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal what the tool returns—information about inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables—but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it performs any calculation, or what the output format is. This is acceptable for a describe tool but not richly transparent.

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 efficiently enumerates the three main content areas: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no fluff.

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, descriptive tool with no output schema, this description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool will tell them about the calculator. No critical detail is missing for deciding whether to invoke it.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful detail about what parameter information will be covered (units, ranges, defaults), even though the tool itself takes no 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 states that this tool describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'calculate', which presumably performs the calculation rather than describing it.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would consult this before calling calculate to understand inputs and behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named.

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 and mostly meets it: it states the tool returns explanatory content and specifies what that content covers (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not explicitly say 'this tool itself has no side effects' or 'does not submit an enquiry,' but the verbs 'States' and 'returns' strongly signal a read-only informational tool.

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, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every clause contributes meaning. The 'Also returns' sentence is slightly ambiguous about its subject, and the title duplicates some of the body's content, but overall the structure is 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?

For a zero-input, no-output-schema explainer tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the product context, the sibling it explains, and the topics its output covers. It could more explicitly declare that this tool itself does not create or submit anything, but that is strongly implied by the framing.

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 already fully covering that (an empty schema), so there are no parameter semantics to add. The description adds useful non-schema context about what the returned explanation contains, which is the relevant semantic value here.

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 ('States') against a specific resource ('what submit_enquiry does on HMO Mortgage Calculator') and then concretely defines that scope: it starts an enquiry with human providers, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This clearly separates it from submit_enquiry (the action itself) and from other describe/calculation siblings.

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' explicitly instructs when to use this tool — before relying on or acting through submit_enquiry. It identifies the target sibling and the intended context, though it does not explicitly compare against calculator_describe or enquiry_fields.

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 it discloses the returned content in detail without claiming any mutation or side effect. The instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry implies this is a read-only metadata lookup, and the tool's output structure is made transparent.

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 filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then delivers the actionable guidance about submit_enquiry, making every sentence useful.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, the meaning of each field, and how to use the result with submit_enquiry. 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 baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail because there are no parameters to describe; the empty schema is complete and consistent.

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 exactly what the tool exposes — every field of the HMO Mortgage Calculator enquiry — and enumerates the returned attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like calculator_describe and enquiry_describe by focusing on structured field metadata.

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 a concrete usage context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells an agent this tool is the source for building valid submissions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the connection to submit_enquiry is 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the requirement of explicit consent, the email-verification gate before providers see data, and the distribution to up to three brokers. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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-loaded with the purpose and the two-step flow before any detail; every sentence carries operational weight. The one inefficiency is the verbatim consent sentence, which duplicates the schema's consent description rather than referencing it.

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 the description compensates by describing exactly what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submission plus a verification email). For a 3-parameter nested-object tool with a two-phase protocol, nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' is bound to a specific verbatim agreement, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token used only after the person approves the summary. That cross-field workflow context is not in 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?

States a specific verb+resource (submits an enquiry to human providers) and immediately scopes it with negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which cleanly separates it from the calculate/calculator_describe siblings. It also points at the enquiry_fields sibling as the source of the answer keys.

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 two-step protocol is spelled out with explicit gating: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 happens 'only if the person agrees'. It also states the exclusions (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote) and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry.

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