site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it states the tool returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method, and clarifies that no purchase, payment, or guaranteed quote occurs. It stops short of explicitly stating that calling this tool itself has no side effects, but the 'Read first' framing strongly implies it.

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 the imperative 'Read first' and conveys all key points in a compact space. Some phrasing is slightly redundant with the title, and the semicolon-heavy sentence makes it a bit dense, but every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the non-transactional nature, and the return contents. An agent can invoke it correctly and know what to expect without additional context.

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 does not add parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed because the schema is empty and no invocation arguments are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') tied to a concrete resource (submit_enquiry on Georgia Roof Replacement Cost) and clearly frames this tool as informational rather than transactional. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by emphasizing 'Read first' and listing what is not done (no purchase, no order, no payment, no guaranteed quote).

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?

'Read first' explicitly signals that this tool should be used before acting on submit_enquiry, and the description clarifies it is for explaining what an enquiry entails. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, so sibling routing is not fully complete, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the main behavioral content: the field metadata structure, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also reveals how the values should be used with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, but the metadata-only framing makes that clear.

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 compact sentences cover what the tool returns and how to use the returned keys with submit_enquiry. Every clause adds information, with no padding or repetition.

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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description is effectively complete: it enumerates the returned attributes and explains the downstream workflow. The sibling distinction is inferable from the title and wording, so no essential context 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The description appropriately focuses on the returned field attributes rather than inventing parameter-level detail.

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 (Georgia Roof Replacement Cost enquiry fields) and the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It is not tautological, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns' and does not directly contrast with the sibling enquiry_describe.

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 line 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives concrete usage context: consult this tool to learn the accepted field keys before submitting. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data. It also spells out exactly what consent authorizes (up to three contractors, email notification, opt-out).

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 critical 'NOT a purchase' disambiguation and organized as step 1 / step 2. Slightly long because the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim (and already appears in the schema's consent field), a minor redundancy, but every clause otherwise 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a link gating provider visibility). For a two-step mutation with nested params, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is only used on the second call after approval. The cross-parameter workflow 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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Georgia Roof Replacement Cost) and explicitly disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) are clearly distinct — those supply schema/fields, this one performs the submission.

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 if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. Conditions that gate each call are stated outright, and the 'not a purchase' framing tells the agent when this is not the right tool.

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