site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what the tool returns, side effects, limitations, or any other behavioral traits. The vague statement offers no insight into how the tool behaves.

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 a single sentence but is poorly structured and confusing. It is not concise in the sense of being clear and efficient; rather, it is underspecified and awkward, failing to convey its message effectively.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clearly state its purpose. It fails to do so, leaving the tool's functionality ambiguous. The description is inadequate even for a simple 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 there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not add or contradict any parameter information, which is acceptable since none exist.

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 mentions 'comparison' and 'criteria and filters of the Types of freight intermediary,' but the phrasing is grammatically broken and unclear. It lacks a clear verb and resource, making it hard for an agent to discern the exact action and object. It is not a tautology but is too vague to differentiate from sibling comparison tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_options or compare_table. The description does not provide any context, exclusions, or alternative routing, leaving the agent without direction.

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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions optional filtering by tag value but does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe the output format, or disclose any other behavioral traits such as default behavior or 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 a single, somewhat convoluted sentence. It is short and not overly verbose, but the structure is run-on and could be clearer. The information is packed awkwardly, reducing readability.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide complete context. It lists some return fields (name, best for, tags) but fails to explain the output format, pagination, or the exact behavior of the filter. An agent would not know what to expect from a call.

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 schema provides no description coverage for filterKey or filterValue. The description mentions filtering by a tag value but does not explain what filterKey should be (e.g., 'tag'), the expected format of filterValue, or any constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the parameters.

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 identifies the resource ('Types of freight intermediary') and the fields returned (name, what it is best for, tags), but it lacks a clear action verb and is awkwardly phrased ('what each does comparison'). It doesn't clearly state that the tool lists or compares options, making the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as compare_criteria or compare_table. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only describes table content, not behavior: no read-only guarantee, output shape, or filtering behavior beyond the vague notion of a 'full table.'

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 a single run-on, awkward sentence that is hard to parse, and the title 'The comparison table' already repeats the obvious noun. A clearer front-loaded rewrite such as 'Returns a comparison table showing every option on every criterion' would serve an agent much better.

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 single-parameter tool this is minimally viable, but it is incomplete: it does not state what the rows and columns are, what values the option parameter should take, or how this relates to the sibling comparison tools. No output schema exists to fill those gaps.

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 single optional parameter is already fully documented in the schema with 'one option's name, else all.' The description's 'full table' loosely supports the else-all default, but it adds no additional syntax, format, or semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gestures at a full comparison table of options against criteria, which is a recognizable purpose, but it lacks an explicit verb and the phrase 'what each does comparison' is ungrammatical. It does not clearly differentiate the tool from sibling tools like compare_criteria or compare_options.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_criteria or compare_options. An agent cannot tell whether this is the general table and the siblings are filtered views, or some other relationship.

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 must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free,' which reassures about the underlying submit_enquiry behavior. It also specifies what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation process), giving the agent a clear picture of the output. It does not mention side effects, but for a read-only descriptor, this is sufficient.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the key point ('Read first') and then state the tool's function and return content. It avoids fluff, though the phrasing 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' could be tightened. Overall, every sentence 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, no-output-schema descriptive tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: it explains the purpose, the scope, and the specific information returned. There are no missing elements that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none. No compensation needed, and the description does not introduce confusion about parameters.

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 that the tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Freight Forwarder Finder, and that it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is a clear purpose, though the tool's own role as a pre-submission informational tool could be more explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_enquiry by being descriptive rather than action-oriented.

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 phrase 'Read first' implies the tool should be used before submitting an enquiry, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides contextual guidance (it describes the submission process) but lacks clear exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like compare_options or enquiry_fields.

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. It discloses the output contents thoroughly (six field properties and conditional allowed options) and implicitly signals a read-only operation by describing a listing rather than a mutation. It could explicitly say 'this does not submit the enquiry', but the submit_enquiry reference makes that clear enough.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the scope and returns the content list; the second gives the practical usage. It avoids repeating the title or restating 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, zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to use the result. It could specify the exact return shape (e.g., array of objects), but the property list and submit pointer are sufficient for an agent to call and use it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds semantic value by explaining what the returned data represents and how to map it to submit_enquiry parameters, going beyond the empty 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?

The description states a clear scope: 'Every field of the Freight Forwarder Finder enquiry' followed by the exact properties returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It distinguishes itself from the compare_* siblings and from submit_enquiry by clarifying it only exposes the field structure and that answers should go to submit_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?

It gives a concrete usage pointer: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', telling the agent when to use this tool (before submitting). It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or the compare_* tools, so choosing among those siblings is left to inference rather than stated.

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 thoroughly: it discloses that this is not a purchase, that step 1 only validates and returns a token, that the token is required for step 2, that the person gets an email requiring a click before any provider sees the enquiry, and exactly what consent authorizes (up to three firms, direct contact, per-firm notification, ability to stop further sharing). Side effects and consent semantics are fully surfaced.

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 and tightly ordered: the disclaimer, then step 1, then step 2, then the consent definition. Every sentence does work, though the full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim in both the description and the consent parameter schema, which is redundant text an agent must read twice.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submission plus a confirmation email with a required click). For a two-phase, consent-gated tool with a nested answers object, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining the lifecycle of `confirmation` (only obtained from step 1, only used after the person approves the summary) and that `answers` must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. It does not add type or format detail beyond the schema, keeping it at 4.

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 Freight Forwarder Finder") and immediately bounds it with explicit negatives ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like compare_options or enquiry_fields without opening any 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?

It gives precise call conditions for both steps: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 "only if the person agrees" with the confirmation token. Prerequisites are clear (field keys come from enquiry_fields), but it never explicitly routes away from the other sibling tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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