site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also states what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). This is sufficient for an informational tool, though it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only' or describe any side effects, but given it's a description tool, that's implied.

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 and front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, then explains the purpose, clarifies exclusions, and lists return contents. Each sentence adds value; it's not overly verbose for the information conveyed.

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 covers what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and why to call it. The only minor gap is not explicitly naming the sibling tools, but the purpose is clear from 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 there is nothing to describe beyond what the schema already shows (empty object). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter information because none exists.

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 purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does on Malta Crypto Licence, including the nature of the enquiry (human providers, no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free). It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by explicitly saying it is not the submission action, and from enquiry_fields by focusing on the process and outcomes.

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 opens with 'Read first,' which is an explicit usage instruction suggesting this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the context implies it is a prerequisite and distinguishes it from the actual submission tool.

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 burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation (no side effects implied) and discloses the exact content of the response. It doesn't mention authentication or pagination, but for a simple field-listing tool, that is not a critical omission.

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 sentences long with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second provides a clear pointer to the sibling tool. Every word 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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It enumerates the return fields (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and explains how the result should be used (keyed answers for submit_enquiry). Nothing an agent needs 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 description does not need to explain any. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters, which is correct — there are none to document.

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 function: it lists every field of a specific enquiry (Malta Crypto Licence) and enumerates the returned attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is distinct from the sibling tools — submit_enquiry handles submissions, and enquiry_describe likely describes the enquiry as a whole — making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, indicating this tool is meant to fetch field definitions before submission. This provides a clear when-to-use context and a direct connection to the next step, though it doesn't explicitly state 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose important side effects — an email is sent, a link must be clicked, providers only see it after confirmation — which is strong. However, it does not state error/validation-failure behavior, what happens if the token is reused or expires, or rate-limit/auth requirements.

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-loads the critical non-purchase distinction, then presents the two steps in labeled order. It is somewhat long because the full consent string is quoted verbatim, but that text is materially necessary to understand the consent parameter.

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 multi-step, side-effecting tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains both steps, the consent meaning, and the email/confirmation side effect. It lacks only failure-mode and idempotency details.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including that 'answers' is keyed by field key and how 'confirmation' relates to step 1. The description reinforces the answers/consent/token protocol but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Malta Crypto Licence) and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or a guaranteed quote. It is clearly differentiated from siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which appear to supply the descriptive/field metadata needed before calling this tool.

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 with the exact condition that selects each call ('only if the person agrees') and the precise arguments required at each stage. Nothing is left to inference about when to call step 1 vs step 2.

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