site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state that the tool returns explanatory information including who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior, which implies a read-only informational tool. It does not explicitly declare the absence of side effects, but the 0-parameter informational nature makes this a minor gap.

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 and each contributes meaningful information: the reference to submit_enquiry, the non-transactional caveats, and the return content. The title is somewhat ambiguous but the body is front-loaded and efficient.

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, the description adequately covers what the tool is for, what it clarifies, and what it returns. No output schema exists, so the explicit mention of return content helps fill that gap, though the exact format is still unspecified.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the empty schema already shows. Per the calibration baseline, 0 parameters earns a 4 even without parameter-specific explanation.

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 the tool explains what submit_enquiry does, using the verb 'States plainly' and listing the content it returns. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the informational precursor rather than the action itself, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 opening 'Read first' implies the tool should be used before submit_enquiry, giving contextual timing guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over enquiry_fields or submit_enquiry, and it offers no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states what the tool exposes and that the allowed options are included only 'where there are any'. The no-parameter, read-only nature is implied, though not explicitly stated as 'returns no side effects'.

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 compact, information-dense, and front-loads the main content before the usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple no-parameter lookup tool, the description conveys the substantive content and how the results connect to submit_enquiry. The only minor gap is that it does not specify the exact return container (array versus object), but the enumerated field details largely cover what an agent needs.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation gap. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about parameter usage.

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 resource (every field of the Florida HVAC Replacement Cost enquiry) and the specific attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly contrast with enquiry_describe, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 clear context for how to use the output: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implicitly differentiates it from submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly state when to use enquiry_fields versus enquiry_describe, leaving some inference required.

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: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission only happens on step 2, that a confirmation email click is required before any provider sees the data, and it spells out exactly what consent authorizes (up to three contractors, direct contact, stop rights).

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 disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') and the step order is easy to follow. It loses a point for reproducing the full consent sentence verbatim, which already appears in the consent parameter's schema description, adding 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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream consequence (email link, provider visibility). For a nested-object, two-phase tool this is complete enough to call 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: answers must be keyed by field key obtained from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and the confirmation token is only supplied on the second call after the person approves the summary. The only shortfall is that the mechanics of the token are also partly restated in the schema.

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?

Specific verb (submits) plus resource (an enquiry) with an explicit negative scope: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the sibling it draws its input keys from (enquiry_fields), so an agent can separate it from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields without opening a schema.

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 lays out the exact two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent, show the summary and consent line; step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the token. Both the when and the gating condition are stated outright, leaving nothing to inference.

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