site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the tool produces four specific annual facility-cost metrics. It also discloses fallback-to-default behavior for missing inputs. It does not explicitly state read-only or no-side-effect behavior, but 'calculate' plus the output list makes that a reasonable inference.

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 and front-loaded with the action, and the semicolon-separated output list is efficient. However, the redundant 'calculator calculator' typo reduces polish, and the description could be cleaner while staying concise.

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 calculator with no output schema, the description lists the main computed values and mentions default fallback, which covers the essentials. It does not show how the seven inputs map into the calculation or describe any output formatting, so an agent still relies on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 and the description does not need to restate parameter meanings. The only parameter-related addition is the default fallback note, which is useful operationally but adds no meaning beyond the schema's 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 states a concrete action ('Run the Invoice factoring cost calculator') and enumerates the computed metrics: service fee for the year, average balance drawn, discount charge, and total annual cost. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings and includes the awkward 'calculator calculator' wording.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like calculator_describe. The only usage-related statement is 'Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults,' which is helpful for calling the tool but does not address tool selection; the intended usage is mostly implied by the title and tool name.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), which is transparent, but it does not mention any side effects, read-only nature, or other behavioral traits. The description is adequate for a describe tool but lacks explicit safety or side-effect information.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. It covers the essential content without unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness and structure.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete overview of what the tool offers. It specifies the types of information (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) but does not detail the format or structure of the output, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its function.

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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds no parameter-related information. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.

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 the tool describes the inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables of the calculator. The title specifies the calculator, and the description is specific about what it covers, distinguishing it from calculate which likely performs calculations.

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 this tool is used to obtain information about the calculator, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools like calculate or enquiry_describe. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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 disclosure burden. It states what the tool returns ('who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms') and communicates key expectations like 'nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'no quote is guaranteed'. It does not describe the output format or explicitly confirm this describe call is side-effect-free, but for a read-first description tool the coverage is adequate.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. 'Read first' is front-loaded, the second sentence explains the core behavior, and the third lists what is returned. There is no redundancy or 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete: it tells an agent why to call it, what it explains about submit_enquiry, and what content it returns. Nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking this simple describe 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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema reflects that completely. Since there is nothing to document, the baseline of 4 applies and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 positions this tool as the explainer: 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does'. It distinguishes the describe step from the actual submit_enquiry action and names the scope ('on Invoice Factoring Cost'). It does not explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, but the separation from submit_enquiry is clear enough.

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' provides explicit temporal guidance: use this before invoking submit_enquiry. The description also clarifies what the enquiry will not do (no purchase, no guarantee, free), which helps an agent decide whether the enquiry flow is appropriate. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing among siblings, 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what data the tool exposes, but does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only metadata lookup or describe edge cases such as what happens when an enquiry has no optional fields. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the content scope and the second states how the result should be used. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what an agent will receive and how to apply it downstream. It could be more explicit about the response format, but the description covers the essential call context.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that field keys are the link to submit_enquiry, even though there are no parameters to document.

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 exact resource (Invoice Factoring Cost enquiry fields) and enumerates the field attributes returned. It does not use an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous and it is clearly distinct from submit_enquiry and the calculator 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 explains that field keys from this tool should be used to pass answers to submit_enquiry, giving the agent a clear integration path. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, but the intended workflow is evident.

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 it well: it discloses the two-call state machine, that submission triggers an email requiring the person to click a link before any provider sees the data, that up to three brokers will be contacted, and spells out exactly what consent authorizes. These are material side effects an agent could not infer otherwise.

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 negative definition and then numbered steps, so the reader gets orientation immediately. The main cost is the verbatim consent paragraph, which largely duplicates the consent parameter description in the schema; trimming it would tighten the text without losing meaning.

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 nested-object, three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: both call phases, required arguments per phase, what is returned after step 1, and the post-submission email verification flow.

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, but the description adds real meaning: answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', consent must be true only after the person has read the stated text, and confirmation is the step-1 token used only on the second call. It clarifies the inter-parameter sequencing the schema cannot express.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('submits an enquiry to Invoice Factoring Cost') with an explicit contrast against siblings and the obvious wrong interpretation: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish it from calculate/enquiry_fields without opening a schema.

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 and obtain a token, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition (user approval) and the alternative path are both stated.

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