site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, which is useful behavioral information. It also hints that the tool returns three notice values. However, it does not clarify side effects, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, though a calculator is likely pure.

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 and front-loads the action, but the redundant 'calculator calculator' and the semicolon-separated output list make it slightly awkward. It is concise overall, but the wording suggests a lack of polish rather than deliberate minimalism.

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 calculator with no output schema, the description lists the expected return values and the fallback behavior, which is helpful. But it does not explain how 'Notice that applies' is derived from the statutory and contractual values, nor how the 'direction' parameter affects the result. An agent can invoke it with the schema's defaults, but some semantic context 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all three parameters with types, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond listing output categories, which does not compensate for or extend the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a notice period calculator and lists the three outputs (statutory, contractual, and applicable notice), making the function clear. The phrase 'calculator calculator' is redundant, but the verb 'Run' plus the named resource and output list are sufficient to distinguish it from the describe/enquiry 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. However, the tool name 'calculate', title 'Notice period calculator', and sibling names (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe) imply this is the tool to invoke for performing a calculation rather than describing or querying. Usage context is implied but not 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies an informational, read-only purpose by saying it describes inputs and outputs, but it never explicitly states that the call is non-mutating, returns documentation rather than calculations, or has no 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 a single, compact sentence with no filler words, and it front-loads the resource being described. It loses a point only because it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-led instruction.

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 documentation tool, the description adequately captures the scope of what will be returned. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and with no output schema or annotations, these gaps leave the agent relying on inference about side effects and when to invoke the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately mentions that inputs are covered as part of the tool's descriptive content, which is sufficient given the empty input 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 clearly identifies the subject (the notice period calculator) and enumerates what the tool covers: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. This distinguishes it from calculate and the enquiry-related siblings, though it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb statement like 'Describes...'.

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 calculate, enquiry_describe, or submit_enquiry. The sibling names imply calculator_describe is an explanatory companion to calculate, but the description does not state this or provide any when-to-use / when-not-to-use conditions.

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 delivers by disclosing what the tool returns: the nature of the enquiry (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free), who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that this tool itself has no side effects, but 'states plainly' and 'returns' clearly mark it as informational.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the 'Read first' directive and the core purpose, then supplies key specifics about what the returned explanation contains. 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?

For a zero-parameter, informational tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, what information it returns, and when to use it ('Read first'), making the tool safely and correctly invocable without further 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 tool has zero parameters and the empty schema provides 100% coverage. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; there are no parameters for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Notice Period Calculator.' It explicitly names the sibling tool it describes, which distinguishes it from submit_enquiry itself and from calculator_describe. The title reinforces the subject matter without obscuring the tool's descriptive role.

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 a clear directive that tells the agent to use this tool before engaging with submit_enquiry. It gives practical timing guidance, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like calculator_describe or enquiry_fields or state conditions for choosing one over another. This keeps it from a perfect score.

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 the scope of the data ('Every field'), the specific attributes included, and the conditional presence of allowed options. It doesn't explicitly state the return format or whether the operation is read-only, but the metadata nature of the tool makes that largely apparent.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool exposes, and the second provides an actionable pointer to the sibling submission 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 metadata tool, this is essentially complete. It describes the content of the returned fields and connects them to the next step in the workflow. No output schema exists, so the description itself adequately communicates what an agent will receive.

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 no parameters, so the input schema already covers everything. The description adds useful context by explaining how field keys returned by this tool should be used with submit_enquiry, which goes beyond 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 clearly identifies the resource — every field of the Notice Period Calculator enquiry — and enumerates the attributes exposed (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' and it does not directly differentiate itself from 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 description gives a practical usage hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' It does not explicitly state when to use enquiry_fields versus enquiry_describe or other siblings, leaving the choice to 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses that a submission triggers an email with a clickable link, that providers only see the enquiry after that click, that step 1 is validation-only, and that consent has a precise meaning. These are important behavioral details beyond the bare schema.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place, with the critical 'not a purchase/quote' distinction front-loaded and the two-step workflow clearly numbered. The included consent quote is necessary given its legal/behavioral significance and the schema's reference to 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?

For a two-step submission tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what happens at each step, what the agent should show the user, what the confirmation token is for, what triggers the email, and the precondition for provider visibility. No critical operational detail for correct invocation 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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: answers keys come from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only when the exact consent line has been agreed to, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This operational enrichment goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 submits an enquiry to human providers, explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and describes the two-step nature in the title and body. This differentiates it from siblings like calculate and enquiry_describe without ambiguity.

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 instructions: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement naming alternative tools, but the workflow guidance is otherwise clear.

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