site

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

Since no annotations are supplied, the description has the full transparency burden. It does disclose the computed result categories and the fallback-to-defaults behavior, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is purely read-only/stateless, how results are returned, or any assumptions/constraints beyond the documented defaults.

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 the key action and output list front-loaded, and no filler. The typo 'calculator calculator' and the compact semicolon-separated output list keep it from being a perfect 5, but it is still appropriately 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 an eight-parameter calculator with no output schema and no annotations, the description could do more: it lists the output categories and notes default fallback, but it omits output shape/units, whether results are returned as a single object, and how this relates to the sibling enquiry/calculator-describe tools. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

All eight parameters are already described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no per-parameter semantics beyond pointing to 'documented defaults,' but the schema carries that weight.

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 a specific action ('Run') and resource ('Pub mortgage calculator') and enumerates the four outputs, so an agent can tell this tool computes mortgage figures. It does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling calculator_describe, and the doubled 'calculator calculator' wording is a minor blemish, so it falls just 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?

Usage is implied: call this tool when the requested outputs are mortgage payment/interest/fee figures, and omitted inputs will use defaults. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as calculator_describe or submit_enquiry, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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 indicates that the tool provides descriptive information about calculator inputs, outputs, and assumptions, which suggests a read-only metadata operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed or that no side effects occur, which would improve clarity.

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 lists the three key content areas: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It contains no filler, though it is grammatically a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement with a main verb.

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 zero-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects an agent would want to know: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It is nearly complete, though an explicit note that this tool does not perform the calculation itself would fully close the loop with the 'calculate' sibling.

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 is not required to document any. The mention of calculator inputs refers to the calculator being described, not to this tool's own parameters, so the 0-param baseline of 4 applies without needing additional 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 title 'What Pub mortgage calculator computes' and description make clear this tool describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'calculate' tool, which presumably performs the calculation, but the description itself lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'explains' and relies partly on the title for clarity.

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 tool to use when an agent needs to know the calculator's inputs, defaults, outputs, or assumptions. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of 'calculate' or any other sibling tool, leaving the usage context mostly implicit.

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. It discloses the non-transactional nature of the enquiry (nothing bought, ordered, or paid; no guaranteed quote; free) and what the description returns. It stops short of explicitly stating that this tool itself is read-only, but that is strongly implied by describing rather than performing the action.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, then explains the core behavior and return contents in a compact set of sentences. It is slightly meta in phrasing but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 describe tool, the description is adequately complete: it explains what the underlying submit_enquiry flow does and what information the description will contain. No critical details needed to use the tool correctly are 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 takes zero parameters, so no additional parameter semantics are needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return content rather than input 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 clearly states that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Pub Mortgage Calculator, including that it starts a human enquiry, involves no purchase or payment, and guarantees no quote. This is a specific verb+resource description and is distinguishable from siblings like submit_enquiry and calculator_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 opening 'Read first' is an explicit usage instruction, telling the agent to consult this tool before using submit_enquiry. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but for a describe-style tool the guidance is sufficient and 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 the full burden of explaining behavior. It tells the agent what the tool returns (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options) and how the output should be used with submit_enquiry. It does not describe read-only guarantees or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter metadata retrieval tool the disclosure is strong.

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 efficient sentences: the first front-loads the full field-attribute list, and the second immediately tells the agent how to connect the output to the sibling submit_enquiry tool. No filler or repetition 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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return content and its downstream purpose. It does not specify the exact top-level response shape (array vs object), but it provides enough detail for an agent to correctly interpret the fields and use them in submit_enquiry.

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 no input schema to clarify; the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description still adds relevant semantic context by explaining that fields have keys and that those keys are the expected keys for submit_enquiry answers.

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 Pub Mortgage Calculator enquiry, and lists the specific attributes exposed. Although it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'get' or 'list', 'Every field...' makes the retrieval purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as submit_enquiry and calculator_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 second sentence gives practical usage context: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies when the tool is relevant, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, nor does it mention any 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that this is not a purchase, that consent is legally scoped (contact details go to up to three named-type brokers), that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and that the token gates actual submission. That is unusually rich side-effect and data-sharing 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 key disambiguation, then the two steps in order. It is long, and the consent sentence is quoted verbatim even though the same text already appears in the schema's consent description, which is mild duplication. Every other sentence earns its place by describing behaviour the schema cannot express.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover returns — and it does: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token; step 2 triggers submission and a verification email. For a two-step, side-effecting tool with nested answers, 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 the schema: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (pointing at the sibling that supplies them), consent must be true at both steps, and 'confirmation' is explicitly the token returned from step 1. It does not explain value formats or validation failure behaviour.

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 (submits), resource (enquiry), and recipient (human providers), and immediately disambiguates from siblings by declaring it is NOT a purchase and NOT a guaranteed quote. An agent can distinguish it from calculate/enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe without opening any 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 with the gating condition spelled out: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 is called 'only if the person agrees'. It also tells the agent what to show the person between steps, which is the real usage constraint here.

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