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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals the two-step stateful flow, consent requirements, that the person receives an email with a link they must click, and that providers only see the enquiry after that click. It also warns that this is not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote, preventing false expectations.

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 well-structured with Step 1 and Step 2, front-loading the most important caveats ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then providing sequential instructions. Every sentence adds necessary operational detail; no fluff or repetition. The length is justified by the complexity of the two-step flow.

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?

The description fully explains the return values of step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the required consent action, and the email-link behavior after submission. It even explains the condition under which the confirmation token is used in step 2. For a tool with no output schema and human-provider involvement, this coverage is complete.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, gives the exact consent text that must be agreed to, and specifies that confirmation is the token from step 1 after the person approves the summary. This clarifies the relationship between parameters and the two-step process.

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 to Crypto AML Policy') and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also describes the two-step nature in the title and the body, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like enquiry_describe and 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?

The description provides explicit step-by-step usage: Step 1 call with answers and consent, show the summary and consent line, then Step 2 call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It clearly states when to proceed and what to do with the output, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention 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.