site

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 succeeds: it states the enquiry is free, non-binding, not a purchase/order/payment, and that no quote is guaranteed. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens.

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 'Read first' and communicates the essential caveats efficiently. The second sentence is dense and packs several distinct facts, but every piece of information serves a purpose, so it is not bloated.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool is for, what behavior it describes, the key caveats, and the return contents. There is no missing critical context for invoking this zero-argument 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter meanings for the description to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on purpose and return content instead of inventing parameter guidance that would be irrelevant.

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 states that this tool is a read-first explanation of what submit_enquiry does, using the specific verb 'states' and naming the target resource ('submit_enquiry on Cyprus Company Cost'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by being the descriptive version rather than the action itself, and the title reinforces the boundary by clarifying that no purchase or guaranteed quote is involved.

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 instruction 'Read first' is an explicit usage signal: consult this tool before acting on submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer enquiry_fields, so it does not fully cover all sibling alternatives, but the primary routing guidance is clear and actionable.

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 behavioral burden, and it does so reasonably well: it specifies the exact field metadata returned and notes that allowed options are included only where they exist. It does not discuss authentication or side effects, but for a zero-parameter metadata read operation those risks are low.

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 tight sentences: the first enumerates the returned content and the second gives the usage instruction. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the specific enquiry, enumerates the field metadata, and explains how the output should be used. No critical information 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 the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic meaning by explaining that the returned field keys are designed to be used as the keying convention for submit_enquiry.

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 states that the tool exposes every field of the Cyprus Company Cost enquiry and enumerates exactly what is included: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It identifies the resource precisely, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives a clear downstream instruction: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent why the tool exists and how its output should be used, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe or when not to use it.

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 does so well. It discloses the validate-then-confirm flow, the email with a link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. It also clarifies that step 1 validates and returns a token rather than submitting.

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?

Although longer than average, the description is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into numbered steps. Every sentence provides necessary information—consent text, token usage, and post-submission behavior—so the length is justified and no words are wasted.

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 is remarkably complete for a multi-step mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema: it defines both steps, the consent condition, the token flow, and the email link behavior. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the return value of the step 2 call, though this may be unnecessary for a correctly invoked submission.

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 value by explaining that answers are keyed from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both steps, and the confirmation token originates from step 1. This sequencing context goes beyond the individual 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 Cyprus Company Cost' — and narrows scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step behavior is front and center, making this clearly distinct from siblings 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?

Step 1 and Step 2 are spelled out explicitly, including the exact parameters for each call and the condition that step 2 happens 'only if the person agrees.' It also points to enquiry_fields for the answer keys and warns against treating the tool as a purchase or quote, preventing misuse.

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