site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it explicitly says nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the service is free. It also names what the response includes (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not describe output shape or whether the content is static, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

About three sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first' and then the substance. The phrase 'on AI Sandbox Environments' and the slight redundancy between the title and body cost it a point but it remains tight.

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 must convey return content, and it does name the three things returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation flow). For a zero-parameter informational tool, that is nearly sufficient; only the format/shape of the returned content is left implicit.

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 baseline of 4 applies; there are no argument semantics to explain and the description correctly spends no words on 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 states a specific role: it returns an explanation of what submit_enquiry does, plus recipient, consent wording, and confirmation flow. That is clearly distinct from the siblings enquiry_fields (field definitions) and submit_enquiry (the action itself). It stops short of a 5 because the tool's own verb is framed as 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' rather than a crisp statement of its own output.

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 implied ordering before submit_enquiry, which is genuine guidance. However, no when-not conditions are given and the sibling enquiry_fields is never mentioned, so the agent has to infer whether this or enquiry_fields is the right preparatory read.

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 exist, so the description carries full burden, and it does describe the return shape in detail — useful since there is no output schema. It implies a read-only enumeration without stating it outright, and says nothing about caching or whether the field set is static, which are minor gaps for a zero-parameter lookup.

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, no filler. The content enumeration comes first and the actionable submission hint second, which is the right order for an agent that needs to know what it will get before it plans next steps.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-value semantics and the link to the write tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and use the result 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 takes no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. The description correctly adds the downstream keying convention ('keyed by field key') that explains how the returned 'key' value is consumed.

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 scopes the tool to the AI Sandbox Environments enquiry and enumerates exactly what each returned field carries (key, label, type, required, help text, options). The verb is implicit rather than stated ('Every field of...'), and it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling enquiry_describe, but an agent can still tell what it returns.

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 a concrete downstream workflow: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which routes the agent to the correct sibling after calling this one. It does not say when to prefer enquiry_describe instead, but the usage context is clear.

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 so: it discloses validation, returned summary/consent line/token, the two-call flow, the downstream email confirmation link, and that providers cannot see the enquiry until that link is clicked. It also clarifies that the tool submits an enquiry rather than completing a purchase or quote.

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 purpose and the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, then organizes the rest into explicit Step 1 and Step 2 instructions. Despite its length, every sentence earns its place by explaining the staged consent and confirmation process.

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 three-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the missing context: what Step 1 returns, how Step 2 differs, the role of consent, and what the person receives afterward. An agent has enough information to invoke both stages correctly without additional documentation.

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 some workflow meaning beyond the schema, especially tying answers to field keys from enquiry_fields and clarifying that confirmation only applies in Step 2 after human approval; most individual parameter descriptions themselves are largely repeated from the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry'), explicitly scopes it as 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote,' and clarifies the two-step consent flow. It also ties answers to 'field key from enquiry_fields,' which helps distinguish it from the helper 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?

Usage is unusually explicit: Step 1 with answers and consent=true returns a summary/consent line/token; Step 2 is only after the person agrees and requires the same answers plus the token. It also states the consent meaning and the non-purchase boundary, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to call it.

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