site

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can return either a next question or a final verdict, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention if the tool mutates any state (e.g., marks the question as answered), any required authentication, or potential errors like invalid question id. The description gives some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 that directly states the function and key parameters. It front-loads the main purpose without any fluff or unnecessary detail. Every word 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?

Given the tool has only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for basic usage. However, it doesn't explain what the returned 'next question' or 'final verdict' looks like—whether it's an object, string, etc. Without an output schema, this information could be important for the agent to handle the response correctly. Also, 'question' parameter being a string (possibly an id) is not explicitly clarified.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description explicitly defines 'choice' as 'the chosen option (its `choice` index)', which adds meaning. However, 'question' is somewhat vague—it's implied to be a question id but the description doesn't clarify that. Since both parameters are mentioned, it adds some value but doesn't fully clarify all 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 clearly states the tool's function: given a question id and a chosen option, it returns the next question or final verdict. It identifies the specific verb 'return' and the resource 'next question or final verdict'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, which may also deal with questions and progression.

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 usage context: it's used when the agent has a question id and needs to submit an answer to progress. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like checker_start (presumably to start the survey) or checker_tree (maybe to view the question tree). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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. It only states what the tool is (a first question) and does not disclose what happens when it is invoked, what it returns, or whether it has side effects. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool and delivers its only meaningful information immediately.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should clarify what an agent should expect from calling this tool. It does not state the return value or how to proceed afterward, such as using checker_answer for subsequent steps. The context is too sparse for confident use.

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 schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing; the description need not add parameter details.

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 the P11D changes checker decision guide, which implies a starting role. However, it lacks an explicit verb or action, and it does not contrast with sibling tools like checker_answer or checker_tree. It is clear but falls short of fully specifying what the tool does.

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 is the entry point by calling it the 'first question', but it never states when to use this tool versus the alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. There is no routing guidance relative to the listed sibling 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the content scope and the reasoning purpose, but it does not describe the output format, size, structure, or how the tree is meant to be traversed. This is a partial disclosure, not a complete one.

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 that front-loads the core content and ends with the purpose. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail; 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?

The description tells an agent what content is included and why it might be useful, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out important operational details such as the expected response structure and how the returned tree relates to the interactive checker tools. It is adequate but incomplete for fully informed invocation.

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 for this dimension is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameter behavior that does not exist, and no schema compensation 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 identifies the resource: every question, option, and verdict in the P11D changes checker guide. It goes beyond the title by specifying the content scope and intended use. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'retrieves', but the intended function is still clear.

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 the tool is meant for full-tree traversal rather than step-by-step interaction, which distinguishes it from siblings like checker_start and checker_answer. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose in specific situations.

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 key behavioral traits of the enquiry process it describes: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. It also states what the tool returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method), making the tool's informational nature clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: 'Read first' immediately signals priority, followed by the core explanation and supporting caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple descriptive role, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, why it matters, what it returns, and how it relates to 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 accepts zero parameters, so the description is not expected to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no unnecessary param-related detail.

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 this tool's purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does, using a specific verb ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on P11D Changes'). It differentiates from the sibling submit_enquiry by describing the action rather than performing it, and the title reinforces the outcome ('an ENQUIRY with a human, not a purchase').

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 engaging with submit_enquiry, providing clear context. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is self-contained enough for an agent to infer the appropriate timing.

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 strongly implies a read-only metadata operation by describing fields and pointing submission to a different tool, but it never explicitly states that it has no side effects or mentions any operational caveats.

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 plus one targeted instruction; every clause adds information about either the output contents or how to use the result. There is no filler or repetition.

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 metadata tool, the description enumerates the expected return information and connects it to submission. It could be more complete by distinguishing itself from enquiry_describe, but nothing essential to invoking 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is almost nothing for the description to add. The mention of field keys supports the submit_enquiry link, but no parameter-level detail is needed 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 identifies the resource ('P11D Changes enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is exposed: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not contrast with the sibling enquiry_describe tool, 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 instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key gives clear downstream context for when this tool's output is needed. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over checker_* or enquiry_describe, but the intended workflow 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 provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals the two-step validation behavior, the need for explicit consent, the email follow-up, and the condition that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: the non-purchase caveat is front-loaded, the two steps are clearly separated, and the exact consent statement is included because it is legally/behaviorally critical. No filler or redundant explanation exists.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains return values from step 1, the required confirmation token for step 2, the consent text, and downstream effects such as email delivery and provider visibility. An agent has everything needed to execute 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by specifying that answers must use field keys from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is the token returned in step 1 after the person approves the summary. The consent wording is repeated from the schema, so not all parameter value is new, but the sequencing context is genuinely helpful.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry to P11D Changes') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which prevents misuse. It also outlines the two-step submission process, making the tool's role distinct from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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-based instructions: call first with answers and consent to get a summary and token, then call again only after the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for field keys, telling the agent how to obtain valid answers and implicitly separating this tool from field-description siblings.

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