site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose important context: the enquiry is free, nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and returns include who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. However, it does not explicitly state that calling enquiry_describe itself performs no submission and is purely informational, which leaves a small but real ambiguity.

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 then uses short, purposeful sentences to convey the tool's purpose, the non-transactional nature of the enquiry, and the output contents. It repeats a little of the title, but every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 with no output schema, the description gives adequate context: what the tool explains, key behavioral caveats, and what the returned information covers. It does not explicitly link to sibling tools or next steps, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 there is nothing for the description to document. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is handled well; no parameter semantics are needed.

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's job: it explains, in plain language, what submit_enquiry does on Florida Roof Replacement Cost. The title reinforces the outcome ('an ENQUIRY with a human, not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'). It is distinguishable from siblings by its descriptive verb, 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' is an explicit directive to consult this tool before acting, and the description grounds the agent in what submit_enquiry will and won't do. It does not mention when to use enquiry_fields instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing, but the intended usage context is clear.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the contents of the returned field metadata and implies a read-only informational operation, but it does not explicitly state response format, absence of side effects, or any limitations/errors. This is adequate for a simple metadata getter but not richly transparent.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Every field...') and adds a directly actionable downstream note. Every phrase earns its place.

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 no-parameter metadata tool, the description covers what is returned, the data attributes, and how to use the output with a sibling tool. It is slightly incomplete only in not clarifying the relationship, if any, with enquiry_describe.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context by explaining how the returned field keys should be used when calling submit_enquiry, which is more useful than the empty 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns every field of the Florida Roof Replacement Cost enquiry, listing the exact attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It identifies the resource and the kind of data, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full distinction.

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 actionable usage guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This gives clear context for how the output should be used downstream, though it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of enquiry_describe.

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 delivers richly: it discloses the non-binding nature (not a purchase/quote), the two-phase commit pattern, and the side effect that the person receives an email with a link 'they must click before any provider sees it.' It also pins down consent semantics by quoting the exact text the person must agree to.

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?

Roughly 90 words with zero wasted content: the negative framing, both steps, the token round-trip, the email gating, and the quoted consent line all earn their place. The structure is linear (step 1 then step 2) and front-loaded with the core purpose, so an agent can parse the flow sequentially.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations yet a genuinely complex two-call commit flow, the description leaves nothing material out: call order, token reuse, side effects, non-binding scope, and consent prerequisites are all specified. An agent can execute both steps correctly end-to-end without any external documentation.

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, and the description adds beyond it by explaining that the same answers and consent=true are reused across both calls and that confirmation is the step-1 output. The sequencing semantics (which parameters belong to which step) are genuinely useful; the schema itself already documents the confirmation token's origin, which is why this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 action and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Florida Roof Replacement Cost' — a clear verb + object. It disambiguates immediately with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' and the title's 'two steps' framing, which differentiates it from sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) that serve earlier steps in the same flow.

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?

Provides an explicit step-by-step protocol: step 1 validates with answers + consent=true and returns a token; step 2 submits 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the token. It also routes the agent to the prerequisite sibling by specifying answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields' — clear context, concrete conditions, no ambiguity about when to call.

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