site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, which is behavioral context beyond the schema, but it does not state that this is a pure/read-only computation, how errors are handled, or whether results come from an external rate source.

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 and front-loads the action and outputs. It contains a noticeable duplication ("calculator calculator") and the semicolon list is slightly awkward, but overall it is efficient.

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 return values more than it does. It lists the output metrics but does not explain their format, units, or whether all are always returned; the parameter side is complete because the schema is fully annotated.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the default-fallback behavior, which is helpful but largely redundant with the schema's default values, so the baseline 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 states a specific action (run the calculator) and enumerates the outputs it produces: all-in interest rate, capital-and-interest payment, interest-only payment, and arrangement fee. This makes the tool's function clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling calculator_describe 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to use when it wants the listed mortgage calculations. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus calculator_describe or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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: it does not state that the tool is read-only, side-effect free, or that the result is static reference material independent of any loan data. It also says nothing about the response format (structured vs prose) even though no output schema exists.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the enumeration of covered content is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the fragmentary construction delays comprehension of what the tool actually does.

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 introspection tool this is close to adequate: it tells the agent what topics the documentation covers. It omits the two things an agent most needs – that no computation happens here, and what form the answer takes (no output schema exists to fill that gap).

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 the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description's note that inputs carry units, ranges and defaults is extra, useful color about what the documentation covers.

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 enumerates the content returned (inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, tables), which makes the topic clear, but it is a noun phrase with no verb – it never says the tool 'returns documentation' rather than computing anything. An agent must infer from the tool name that this is a metadata/introspection call, not the calculation itself.

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 statement of when to call this versus the sibling 'calculate', nor any precondition such as 'call this first to learn the input format before calling calculate'. Usage is only implied by the word 'describe' in the name.

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 largely succeeds: it discloses that the enquiry is free, non-binding, and does not guarantee a quote, and it states what information the tool returns. It could be even more explicit that this describe tool itself has no side effects, but the content is clearly informational and non-contradictory.

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 front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first' and conveys key facts in a compact paragraph. It does slightly repeat caveats already present in the title, such as 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote', but it remains scannable and free of fluff.

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, no-output-schema description tool, this is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it clarifies, and what information it returns. It also proactively addresses likely user concerns about cost, commitment, and quote guarantees.

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 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 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 uses a clear descriptive verb ('States plainly') and explicitly names the subject ('what submit_enquiry does on Commercial Mortgage Calculator'). It also distinguishes the tool from the submission action by emphasizing that nothing is purchased, ordered, or paid, and no quote is guaranteed.

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' provides clear guidance that this tool should be consumed before interacting with submit_enquiry. It orients the agent toward the sibling tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly discuss all sibling alternatives such as enquiry_fields or calculator_describe.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It specifies the returned content precisely, including the 'where there are any' qualifier for allowed options. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query or describe any side effects, errors, or limitations, which is a modest gap for a metadata retrieval 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence packs all return-value information, and the second delivers actionable guidance on using the result with submit_enquiry. The key content 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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what an agent needs: the set of fields, their attributes, and how to use the keys with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state whether the output is an array or object, but this is a minor omission for such a simple listing 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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and it appropriately stays silent about them.

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 Commercial Mortgage Calculator enquiry') and enumerates the exact attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), making its function evident. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns' and does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_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 instruction to 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' establishes a clear workflow: use this tool to learn the field keys before submitting. This is clear context for use, though it does not mention alternatives or conditions for not using 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, that an email link must be clicked before providers see it, and exactly what consent authorizes (up to three brokers, emailed firm names, opt-out). This is unusually rich disclosure of side effects and downstream data flow.

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 critical 'not a purchase' disambiguation and structured as Step 1 / Step 2. The verbatim consent quote is long but legally necessary and matches the schema, so it earns its place; the only mild cost is overall length.

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-phase, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full lifecycle: validation, returned artifacts, token round-trip, final submission, and the email-confirmation gate. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly in either phase 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: 'answers' must be keyed by field key from the enquiry_fields sibling, consent must be true, and 'confirmation' is the token returned from step 1 and only used after approval. It also embeds the consent semantics that the schema only restates.

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) and resource (enquiry) and immediately disambiguates from siblings by ruling out purchase and guaranteed quote, which separates it from calculate/calculator_describe. An agent can identify this as the human-facing submission tool without opening the 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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. Conditions that gate each call and the alternative path (don't call again) are spelled out rather than implied.

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