site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior—returning either the next question or a final verdict—but it does not mention whether the flow state is mutated, what happens for invalid choices, or any session/state requirements.

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, information-dense sentence. The title and description work together without repetition or filler, and the key input/output behavior is front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a two-parameter tool: it names both inputs and describes the possible return. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it falls short of fully describing the response shape, error behavior, or what the caller should do with the returned next question/final verdict.

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's clarification that `question` is a question id and `choice` is the chosen option's index is essential. It adds meaning beyond the raw property names and types, though it omits details like how to obtain valid question ids or bounds beyond minimum 0.

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 operation: given a question id and a choice index, return the next question or final verdict. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, which have different roles in the flow.

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: use this when a user has answered a question and the flow should advance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, what prerequisites exist (e.g., starting with checker_start), or how it relates 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only labels the tool as a question, without stating that calling it returns or presents the first question, whether it creates any session state, or what the agent should expect in the response.

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 is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how the decision-guide flow proceeds. It does not mention the response format, the next steps, or how this tool relates to checker_answer and checker_tree, leaving important context to inference from sibling names.

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 input schema has zero properties and zero required parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This is the appropriate baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 'Start: Revalidation requirements checker' plus the description 'The first question of the Revalidation requirements checker decision guide' make the tool's role as an entry point reasonably clear. It identifies the resource and its position in a flow, but it does not use an explicit verb and does not differentiate from siblings like checker_answer or checker_tree.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. 'First question' weakly implies it precedes checker_answer, but the description never tells the agent to use this tool to initialize the guide or when to prefer a sibling tool.

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 that the tool returns the entire decision tree content ('every question, option and verdict'), implying a static informational read. It does not discuss output format, size, or state, but for a zero-parameter content tool this is a reasonable baseline.

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 key idea ('every question, option and verdict') and then states the purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy beyond the title.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives the essential content scope and intended use. However, it does not clarify how the tree is structured or how the agent should consume the result when reasoning end to end, leaving some ambiguity about the return format.

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. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics; the empty schema already tells the agent no input 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 tool as exposing the complete decision tree for the Revalidation requirements checker, listing its contents ('every question, option and verdict'). It is somewhat redundant with the title but adds the specific purpose of end-to-end reasoning, which helps distinguish it from the step-oriented checker_answer and checker_start 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?

The phrase 'for reasoning end to end' communicates when this tool should be used: when the agent needs the full decision structure rather than a single step or answer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling names.

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 it delivers: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it describes what the tool returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method). This is strong transparency for a zero-parameter informational 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?

The description is roughly 50 words and every sentence earns its place: purpose, expectations (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote), and return content. 'Read first' front-loads the key usage instruction. Mildly rambling phrasing ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') keeps it from a 5.

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 tool, the description is complete: it defines the tool's role relative to the sibling submit_enquiry, sets user expectations, and enumerates what the tool returns. It does not mention any auth requirements or rate limits, but these are unlikely to be relevant for a descriptive read-only 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 0 parameters, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for that case. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by explaining what informational content the tool returns, which is the relevant semantic information an agent needs.

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 verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Revalidation Tracker, distinguishing it from the action tool submit_enquiry by positioning this as the read-first explainer. The title reinforces this by framing the output as explaining what the user gets. It falls short of 5 because it never directly says 'this tool explains the enquiry process,' instead describing via reference to submit_enquiry.

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' explicitly signals it should be used before submit_enquiry, which is clear usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states exactly what the tool returns (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and that the output is meant to inform submit_enquiry calls. It does not explicitly say it is read-only or non-mutating, but as a zero-parameter metadata retrieval, the 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 tight sentences. The first front-loads the resource and lists the returned attributes; the second gives a cross-reference to submit_enquiry. No filler or redundancy, and every clause 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 simple, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it tells the agent what fields are returned and how to use them with submit_enquiry. The lack of formatting details is acceptable because the caller only needs the keys and labels. The relationship to sibling tools is sufficiently clear through 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 input parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no input parameter details because none exist, but it usefully references the field key as the output-to-input contract for submit_enquiry, which aids correct downstream invocation.

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 Revalidation Tracker enquiry, and enumerates the exact attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by noting that answers should be keyed by field key, and the title adds context. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', so it is slightly less direct than ideal.

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 a workflow: call this tool to learn the field keys, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those keys. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs enquiry_describe or the checker tools, and gives no exclusion criteria. The pointer to submit_enquiry is helpful and provides some situational guidance.

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 and succeeds. It reveals the two-step consent workflow, the exact consent wording, the email link requirement, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link.

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 efficiently organized into numbered steps and opens with the most critical distinction: not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote. The repeated consent details are not redundant because they define a required user-facing boundary.

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, consent-sensitive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: inputs, validation result, confirmation token, approval condition, email behavior, and provider visibility. There is no critical missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context beyond the schema: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields, consent must match a specific agreed statement, and confirmation is the token from Step 1 reused only after approval.

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: 'submits an enquiry to Revalidation Tracker' and immediately clarifies it is not a purchase or quote. It also frames the two-step nature of the operation, making it 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?

It provides explicit step-by-step usage: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, using the confirmation token. It also excludes misuse by stating this is NOT a purchase and NOT a guaranteed quote.

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