site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key non-obvious traits: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; the enquiry is free. It also specifies what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that the tool itself is side-effect-free, but 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' strongly implies a read-only descriptive role.

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 tight sentences with no fluff. 'Read first' is a useful front-loaded instruction, followed by a clear summary of the described action and its key caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 parameterless, no-output-schema tool, the description fully explains what the tool is for and what information it returns. It covers the practical outcome, the non-purchase/non-guarantee caveats, and the specific return content. Given the low complexity, nothing essential 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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot meaningfully add parameter-level detail. The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, leaving no gap for the description to fill. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 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 purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Crypto AML Policy. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by being the read-first explanatory tool rather than the action tool. The title reinforces the purpose by describing what the user gets from an enquiry.

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' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before proceeding, establishing clear timing. It references submit_enquiry as the action being described, giving context for when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly list exclusion cases or alternatives beyond the implied relationship with submit_enquiry.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It does so by enumerating the field attributes returned and the relationship to submit_enquiry. It does not describe output shape or side effects, but this is a read-only metadata listing with no parameters.

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 contain all necessary information with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the submit_enquiry linkage is a natural, efficient addition.

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 metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what fields will be described and how they relate to submission. It could mention the exact output format or reference enquiry_describe, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity of the 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, so parameter semantics are not a real concern. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 as exposing all fields of the Crypto AML Policy enquiry, listing the exact metadata included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by stating that answers should be passed to that tool keyed by field key.

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 clear usage context by telling the agent to use the returned field keys when passing answers to submit_enquiry. However, it does not mention enquiry_describe or explicitly state when not to use 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 and meets it: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the two-phase submission, the downstream email confirmation step, and exactly what consent authorizes (contact details to up to three advisers, opt-out rights). This is unusually rich for a mutation 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?

Front-loaded with the most important qualifier (not a purchase) and cleanly organized into Step 1 / Step 2. It is dense but every clause is functional, with minor redundancy from restating the full consent text already present in the schema.

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 a two-step, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: what each step returns, how the token is obtained and reused, the consent gate, and the post-submission email flow.

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 sequencing semantics the schema cannot: consent=true is used in both steps, while confirmation is only added in Step 2 after approval, and answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. The verbatim consent quote duplicates the schema's own consent description.

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 and resource ("Submits an enquiry") and immediately bounds scope with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote," which disambiguates it from a checkout or quoting tool. The sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) are implicitly routed away by the explicit instruction to key answers "by field key from enquiry_fields".

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?

Explicit about when to call each step: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, Step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the added confirmation token. Also states the consent gate and that the person must click an email link before providers see anything.

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