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 validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, that data goes to up to three providers chosen by the vendor, and that a click-through email must happen before any provider sees it. The only gaps are error handling and repeat-submission behavior, which are minor against this level of disclosure.

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 purpose and exclusions, then the step sequence; nearly every sentence carries operational weight. The verbatim consent text is long and duplicates the schema's `consent` description, which is mild redundancy, but it is legally load-bearing text.

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 two-phase mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the return values (summary, consent line, token), the confirmation loop, and the downstream email/consent consequences. An agent has everything needed to execute both steps correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `answers` is keyed by field key from `enquiry_fields`, `consent` gates the whole submission, and `confirmation` is explicitly the step-1 token used only in step 2. That step-dependent role of `confirmation` is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 to Cyprus Company Cost") and immediately delimits scope with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote," which prevents misclassification. The reference to field keys from `enquiry_fields` also implicitly orients the agent among its siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only after the person approves, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It states both the when (person agreed) and the when-not (before approval) conditions, leaving no inference required.

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