site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, signaling that all parameters are optional. It does not describe the return format, error behavior, or explicitly state there are no side effects, though the computational nature is evident.

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, front-loaded with the action, and organizes the outputs in a compact list. The redundant phrase 'calculator calculator' is awkward but does not obscure meaning or significantly hurt clarity.

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 calculator with seven fully documented optional parameters, the input side is adequately covered. However, since there is no output schema, the description should more explicitly describe how results are returned; the listed output names help but do not fully compensate for that missing structure.

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 already describes all seven parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the default-fallback behavior, but this mostly mirrors the defaults already present in the schema and adds no additional insight into how the parameters interact or should be chosen.

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 specific imperative ('Run') with the calculator resource and lists four concrete outputs: all-in interest rate, monthly payment capital/interest, interest-only payment, and arrangement fee. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like calculator_describe, which likely describes the calculator rather than executing it.

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 is implied that the tool should be used when mortgage calculation outputs are needed, and the listed outputs clarify the intended scenario. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over siblings or any conditions/preconditions, leaving routing mostly to inference.

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. It indicates that the tool surfaces inputs, outputs, and assumptions, which implies a read-only informational call, but it does not explicitly state that no calculation is executed or describe response behavior.

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 single clause is compact and packs useful scope: units, ranges, defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is slightly elliptical because it lacks an explicit verb like 'describes,' but it contains no filler.

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, the definition covers the essential content areas and implies that the return value is descriptive. It would be stronger with an explicit note that no calculation is performed or a hint of the output structure, 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description's reference to inputs refers to the calculator's conceptual fields, not API parameters, which is appropriate for a describe-style 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 description states the resource (commercial mortgage calculator) and the three content areas: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It is clear about what the tool conveys, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like calculate.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as calculate or enquiry_describe. The only hint is the 'describe' in the name, which requires the agent to infer when this documentation tool is appropriate.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the need for a confirmation token, the exact consent wording, and that the person receives an email with a link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry. This is highly transparent behavior beyond the schema.

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 structured with Step 1 and Step2, front-loaded with the core purpose and the purchase caveat. Every sentence contributes procedural or consent information; 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?

This is a complex two-step mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers validation behavior, the intermediate response (summary, consent line, token), the required second call, and the email-link condition before providers see the enquiry. An agent has all necessary context to invoke both steps 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful step-specific semantics: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only when the person agreed to the exact consent text, and confirmation is the token from step 1. This elevates the parameter understanding beyond 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?

States the specific verb 'Submits' and resource 'enquiry to Commercial Mortgage Calculator', then immediately clarifies it is 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', distinguishing it from purchasing or quoting tools. The two-step nature and resource are also reflected in the title, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step usage: Step 1 call with answers and consent=true to get a summary and token; Step 2 call again with the token only if the person agrees. Also gives when-not guidance ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and the exact consent condition. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like enquiry_fields, but the procedure is clear enough to guide correct invocation.

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