site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-transactional nature ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid'), the free nature, the lack of guarantee ('no quote is guaranteed'), and what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). This is thorough and accurate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with a clear directive ('Read first'), and every clause contributes meaningful information. There is no filler or repetition.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it does not do, what the user should expect, and what content is returned. No critical gaps remain.

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 there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not a concern.

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 ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Conveyancing Fees Australia'), and makes clear this tool is explanatory, not transactional. It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by emphasizing that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid.

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 explicit timing guidance: this should be used before taking action, likely before submit_enquiry. It does not mention enquiry_fields or give explicit 'when not to use' alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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 carries the full behavioral burden. It describes what the tool returns and the structure of that data, and it clearly indicates a read-only discovery operation. However, it does not mention response format, error behavior, or that the tool takes no arguments, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 long, front-loaded with the exact contents of the response, and ends with a useful routing hint for submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place, and the title reinforces the purpose 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool returns, the field attributes, and how to use the result with submit_enquiry. It could mention the absence of required arguments or clarify the difference from enquiry_describe, but these are minor gaps for such a simple metadata 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 zero parameters, and the schema already documents that with an empty properties object. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no contradictory or missing parameter information. It appropriately focuses on the response contents instead.

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's resource: every field of the Conveyancing Fees Australia enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be passed to that tool keyed by these field keys, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 description gives practical usage context by stating that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry using the field keys returned here. This implies the tool should be used to discover the enquiry schema before submission, though it does not explicitly state when to choose this over enquiry_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 available, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses validation behavior, the step-1 return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the requirement for the person's agreement before step 2, and the side effect that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry.

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 long but well-structured as Step 1 and Step 2, with the non-purchase disclaimer upfront. The only notable redundancy is repeating the exact consent wording that already appears in the schema, which adds length without new information.

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, the description does a strong job: it covers the two call variants, required inputs, step-1 return values, and the post-submission email-link behavior. The main gap is that it does not describe the step-2 return value or any error/edge-case behavior, but the tool remains usable from the description alone.

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 meaningful context: answers must be keyed per enquiry_fields, consent=true must accompany the exact quoted agreement, and the confirmation parameter is the step-1 token reused in step 2. This is helpful context beyond the already clear schema property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Conveyancing Fees Australia' and immediately excludes misuse by saying it is NOT a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, helping to distinguish the submission action from companion 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 gives an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It states key exclusions (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote), but it does not explicitly say when to choose enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields over this tool.

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