site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it performs a comparison, what 'criteria and filters' refer to, or any side effects. The text is incoherent and provides no useful behavioral context.

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 definition is short, but brevity without clarity is under-specification, not conciseness. The single sentence is malformed and must be rewritten before it can be considered efficient or well-structured.

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 annotations, no output schema, and empty structured metadata, the description is the only source of context, and it provides almost none. An agent cannot tell what criteria are compared, what inputs it might accept, what the result means, or how it relates to the sibling 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?

The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description's vague mention of 'criteria and any filters' does not actively harm parameter understanding, though it adds no real meaning.

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 is grammatically broken and does not state a clear verb or resource: 'The criteria and any filters of the The covers a UK self build needs comparison.' It offers no concrete statement of what the tool does, and the title 'What is compared' is too vague to rescue it. It fails to distinguish compare_criteria from siblings like compare_options or compare_table.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus compare_options, compare_table, or any other sibling. The description does not indicate any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no basis for selecting this 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?

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It hints that the tool returns options and can filter by a tag value, but it never explicitly states that this is a read-only retrieval operation, what the output shape is, or whether any side effects occur. For a tool with no annotation context, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 short, but its structure is poor due to repeated 'The The', missing words, and awkward phrasing. It is not cleanly front-loaded with a clear action or object. A concise description still needs to be grammatical and immediately understandable, which this is not.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description still leaves major gaps: it does not clearly state what the returned comparison options look like, how filterKey and filterValue work together, or how this tool differs from its siblings. The available information is too incomplete for a new agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters, filterKey and filterValue. The phrase 'optionally filtered by a tag value' gives some meaning to filterValue, but filterKey is not explained, and the relationship between the two parameters is left ambiguous. This is only partial parameter documentation.

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 indicates that the tool provides comparison options with fields such as name, suitability, and tags, and supports optional tag filtering. However, the phrasing 'The options in the The covers a UK self build needs comparison' is garbled and unclear, and it does not explicitly state a verb like 'list' or 'get'. It is more informative than a tautology, but too malformed to fully clarify the tool's purpose.

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 rather than sibling tools like compare_criteria, compare_table, or the enquiry tools. It only mentions an optional filter, which is a parameter detail, not usage context. An agent would have to infer the appropriate tool selection from the name alone.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the core behavior—returning each option's value on every criterion in a full comparison table—which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe format, ordering, default behavior when option is omitted, or whether the result is a matrix versus a structured object.

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 short, but its grammar is severely broken: 'of the The covers a UK self build needs comparison' is confusing and unprofessional. Important context like the parameter's effect and sibling distinctions is absent, so the brevity is not effective conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that overlap in purpose, this description leaves too much unstated. It does not clarify how the optional 'option' parameter changes the returned table, when to choose this tool over alternatives, or what the output looks like. The core idea is present, but the broken sentence makes the description unreliable for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'option' is already documented as 'one option's name, else all.' The description adds no extra meaning about how the option parameter filters the table or what value format is expected. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 conveys that the tool returns a comparison table showing each option's value on every criterion, and the phrase 'the full table' hints at an all-encompassing view. However, the sentence is garbled ('of the The covers a UK self build needs comparison') and lacks a clear, grammatical statement of the operation. It does not meaningfully differentiate from siblings like compare_options or compare_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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The word 'full' weakly implies a comprehensive view, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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 behavioral burden. It clearly frames the tool as informational by saying it 'states' and 'returns' details, and it spells out that no purchase, payment, or guaranteed quote is involved. It does not explicitly say this tool itself is side-effect free, but the zero-parameter schema and descriptive language make that 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 a plain explanation, key exclusions, and return contents. Every sentence earns its place 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 no-parameter, descriptive tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, what it is about, and the key facts an agent needs before invoking submit_enquiry. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately adds no parameter filler; with zero parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and the description meets it.

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 action ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and a specific resource ('Self Build Insurance Compare'), distinguishing it from actual submission and comparison tools. The title and content reinforce that this is an explanatory/descriptive tool, not a purchase or quote 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?

'Read first' is a clear usage directive implying this should be consulted before submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the related submit_enquiry flow does and does not do, which helps an agent decide when this explanatory tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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 explaining behavior. It discloses exactly what data the tool exposes and how the result should be consumed. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, but the metadata-oriented wording and the reference to submit_enquiry 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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the field attributes; the second sentence explains how to use the result with submit_enquiry. 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what fields are returned, the attributes of each field, and how to map them into submit_enquiry. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and use its output 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to add. The description does not reference any inputs, which is appropriate given the empty input schema; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 Self Build Insurance Compare enquiry—and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It lacks an explicit operational verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', but the title and content make the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling 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?

The description provides clear context: this tool exposes enquiry fields, and its output should be used to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly contrast with compare_criteria, compare_options, or compare_table, but the integration with submit_enquiry gives the agent a direct usage clue.

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 full burden and excels: it discloses that submitting is not a purchase/guarantee, requires consent with exact wording, returns a confirmation token, triggers an email with a mandatory click before providers see it, and distinguishes step 1 from step 2. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 carries necessary procedural information, organized by step 1 and step 2. The front-loaded disclaimer ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') prevents misuse early. Slight verbosity in the consent line is justified because it must be quoted exactly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the entire call sequence including validation response, consent line, confirmation token, and email-link behavior. It lacks explicit error-handling guidance and the shape of step 2's response, but it is sufficient for correct 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?

Schema already describes all three parameters, but the description adds operational meaning: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent must be true and match the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token from step 1. This contextualizes the parameters beyond their schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states it submits an enquiry to Self Build Insurance Compare, explicitly distinguishing from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The title reinforces the action and step count, making it distinct from sibling comparison 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?

The description describes a precise two-step workflow: first call for validation and token, second call for actual submission only after agreement. It references enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, guiding the agent toward the correct sibling for field definitions, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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