site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is a calculator, that it produces a low and high quote range, and that omitted inputs are filled from documented defaults. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects', the calculator framing and output description make that reasonably 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, outputs, and default behavior without unnecessary elaboration. It loses a point for the redundant phrase 'calculator calculator' and the slightly choppy colon-separated output list.

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 four optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it tells the agent what outputs to expect and how missing inputs are handled. It could be stronger by clarifying the output format and explicitly routing between calculate and calculator_describe, but nothing essential is missing for invoking 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a name, default, and description. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond noting that defaults apply to missing inputs, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Run the Render cost calculator') and the resource, and it lists the expected outputs: wall area used plus low/high 2026 quote estimates. This distinguishes it from sibling describe/enquiry tools, which either explain the calculator or collect enquiries rather than performing the calculation.

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 the tool should be used when the agent needs a render cost estimate, and it notes that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to use instead, such as calculator_describe for explaining the calculator or submit_enquiry for submitting an enquiry.

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 content the tool provides: input specifications, outputs, assumptions, and tables. The read-only, parameterless nature is evident from the description and empty schema, and no side effects are suggested.

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. It front-loads the core idea and every clause adds meaningful content about the tool's scope.

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 no-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names all major content categories an agent would need to know. A small gap is the lack of explicit connection to the 'calculate' sibling, but this is not critical.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains what the tool covers instead of describing parameters, 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 states that the tool describes the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. It distinguishes itself from 'calculate' by focusing on description rather than computation, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'returns' or '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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and description: use it to understand what the Render cost calculator does before calling 'calculate'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools as 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 full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the process is free, and that it returns who receives details, the consent wording, and the confirmation method. This is strong disclosure for a describe-style 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the 'Read first' directive is front-loaded, the core purpose is stated next, and the caveats plus return contents follow without redundancy. The title also reinforces the non-purchase nature without being repeated verbatim in the body.

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 describe tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without further detail.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to bear. Baseline of 4 is appropriate since parameter semantics are inherently not applicable.

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 purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the Render Cost Calculator, and distinguishes the outcome (an enquiry with human providers who quote directly) from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling submit_enquiry, which is the actual action tool.

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' gives an explicit usage cue that this tool should be consulted before acting, and the explanation of what submit_enquiry does helps an agent decide not to invoke the mutating sibling. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over calculator_describe or enquiry_fields.

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 disclosure burden. It makes clear this is an introspection-style tool that returns field definitions, and the instruction to pass answers elsewhere signals that it does not itself submit. It could additionally state that it is read-only or describe ordering/format, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 sentences deliver a complete, front-loaded list of what the tool returns and immediately connect it to the follow-up action. There is no filler or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the returned field attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also explains how the output should be consumed. A short example or explicit statement that the tool takes no arguments would make it fully complete, but nothing critical 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 description explains how to use its output as input to submit_enquiry, which is the relevant semantic information. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies and is met.

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 tool as returning every field of the Render Cost Calculator enquiry, with a precise list of the metadata included. It also links the output to submit_enquiry, helping distinguish it from the submission step. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like enquiry_describe or 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 description provides a clear context: use this tool to learn the enquiry fields and their keys, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those field keys. It implies a workflow but does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar lookup needs.

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 well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a token, that the enquiry is submitted only in step 2, and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data. It also enumerates the consent scope (up to three specialists, notification per firm, opt-out). It stops short of stating error/validation-failure behavior or idempotency of a repeated step 2 call.

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?

Well front-loaded — the non-purchase disclaimer and the step framing lead. It is dense but nearly every clause is operational. The one redundancy is the consent sentence, quoted verbatim from the schema's consent description, which repeats rather than extends structured data.

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 describe returns, and it does: a summary, the consent line, and a confirmation token from step 1. For a two-phase, nested-object tool that triggers third-party data sharing, this covers what an agent needs to call it 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, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true to proceed, and 'confirmation' is explicitly the token returned from step 1 after approval. That sequencing context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('submits an enquiry to Render Cost Calculator') and immediately disqualifies the two likeliest misreadings: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' That framing cleanly separates it from siblings like calculate 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?

It gives an explicit ordered procedure: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gate condition for the second call is stated, not implied, and the surrounding agent obligations (show the summary and consent line) are spelled out.

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