site

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states subject matter and does not disclose what happens when called, what output is produced, or whether it is a read-only informational tool. This is a material gap because the agent cannot predict behavior from the text alone.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the title front-loads the 'what is compared' idea. It loses a point for awkward phrasing and for relying on the title to supply the implicit action.

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 the description is reasonably scoped, but without an output schema or annotations it does not state whether it returns a list, a table, or an explanation. The agent can infer purpose but not the exact behavior or return shape.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful domain context about criteria and filters, and there are no parameter details for it 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 resource as the criteria and filters used in comparing UK payroll software for small/medium employers, which is specific enough to distinguish from sibling comparison tools at a high level. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb action, so an agent must infer that the tool returns or describes these criteria.

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 about when to invoke this tool versus siblings such as compare_options or compare_table, and it names no alternatives or exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and title.

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 bears the full burden. It discloses that results can be filtered by a tag value and indicates the content fields, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, how the filter behaves (exact match, partial, absent behavior), what happens with no parameters, or the shape of the output.

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 contains useful identifiers, but it is structured as an awkward noun phrase with no front-loaded verb, and 'The options' repeats the title without adding operational clarity. It is under-specified rather than cleanly 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin: it names the subject and one filter detail but omits the return shape, full filter semantics, and how this option list relates to the sibling comparison tools.

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 0% and neither parameter has a description. The text only clarifies filterValue as a tag value and leaves filterKey unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently know what to pass as filterKey or what tag values are valid.

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 ('options in the UK payroll software... comparison') and lists returned fields (name, what it is best for, tags), so an agent knows what the tool is about. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a statement with an action verb: it never explicitly says it lists, returns, or compares options, which leaves the core operation implied.

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 compare_options versus compare_criteria, compare_table, or the enquiry tools. It only mentions an optional tag filter, with no exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates scope ('full table', every criterion) and the optional filtering effect, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or explicitly confirm that this is a safe read-only operation.

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 with no filler. The core content ('each option's value on every criterion') is front-loaded, and the 'full table' qualifier is concise and meaningful.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description conveys the main output and relies on the schema for the optional filter. It is mostly complete, though it would benefit from a hint about choosing compare_criteria or compare_options.

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 the only parameter with 100% coverage: 'one option's name, else all'. The description adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the 'full table' wording does reinforce the default all-options behavior.

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 clear output: the value of each option on every criterion in the UK payroll comparison, i.e., the full table. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_criteria and compare_options by focusing on actual values, though it does not name those 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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use compare_table versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The phrase 'full table' implies this is the comprehensive retrieval tool, but the description does not state exclusions or point to 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, the description carries the transparency burden and mostly meets it: it discloses that the enquiry is free, non-binding, and returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. The verbs 'read', 'states', and 'returns' imply a safe, read-only informational tool, though it could have stated that explicitly.

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 with the most important instruction ('Read first'). Every sentence earns its place: purpose, key clarifications, and return content are covered without redundancy.

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, the description provides enough for an agent to understand when and why to call it. It could have explicitly stated the response format or that this tool itself has no side effects, but given the low complexity, those omissions are minor.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline of 4 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 that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Payroll Software Compare, and the title reinforces the outcome: an enquiry with a human, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_enquiry, which performs the actual action.

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' is a direct instruction to consult this tool before using submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what submit_enquiry does not do (nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed). However, it does not explicitly address when to use the compare_* sibling tools instead.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the semantic content of the returned fields and their downstream use, which is helpful. However, it does not state the output shape (e.g., array vs. keyed object), whether this is a read-only operation, or any other side-effect/authentication expectations.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides one actionable usage pointer. The enumerated attributes are compact but comprehensive.

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 data is returned and how to use it with submit_enquiry. It would be more complete if it specified the return container shape, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call and interpret 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds relevant context about how returned field keys should map into submit_enquiry, though there are no parameters for it 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 clearly identifies the resource as 'Every field of the Payroll Software Compare enquiry' and enumerates the exact attributes returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. This distinguishes it from the compare_* siblings and from submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly frame the action as a verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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, 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' gives direct, practical guidance on how the output should be used, establishing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage intent 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email with a link the person must click before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three suppliers who contact the person directly. It also quotes the exact consent text that consent=true attests to, which is essential for a tool that transmits personal data.

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?

Long but front-loaded with the highest-risk caveat (not a purchase) and ordered to match the two-call workflow, so every sentence serves a purpose. It loses a point because the full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim in both the description and the schema's consent field description, which is redundant text an agent reads twice.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns and does: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token. It also covers the post-submission lifecycle (email link, provider visibility) and the nested answers object's keying convention, leaving nothing material unstated for a 3-parameter, two-phase 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds sequencing semantics the schema cannot convey: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token supplied only after the person approves the summary. The only shortfall is that the acceptable value types inside answers are left entirely to 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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Payroll Software Compare') and immediately disambiguates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). Combined with the sibling set (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields), an agent can tell this is the terminal submission action rather than the read-only discovery 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees, re-calling with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It states the precondition (consent), the gate between calls (human approval of the summary), and the alternative to stopping (not calling step 2 at all).

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