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 the tool's informational nature through 'States' and 'Returns', and it surfaces important caveats: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. It does not explicitly state that the describe call itself is side-effect-free, but no mutating verb is present.

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 dense sentences with no filler. 'Read first' front-loads the usage decision, followed by scope and return-value details, so 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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the key caveats. The only gap is that it does not distinguish itself from enquiry_fields, but the agent still has enough 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and frames itself as the read-first explainer tool. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling action tool submit_enquiry and is not a tautology.

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 imperative 'Read first' explicitly instructs the agent to consult this tool before using submit_enquiry. It does not mention enquiry_fields or state exclusions, but the primary routing is clear and actionable.

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 explains what the tool returns in detail and signals a read-only metadata role by positioning the output as the keying source for submit_enquiry. It does not discuss errors or authentication, but the core behavior is transparent for a simple field-listing tool.

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 enumerates the returned field metadata, and the second gives a direct pointer to the related submission tool. The most important information is front-loaded.

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, the description adequately explains the returned content and how to use it. The main missing piece is distinguishing this tool from enquiry_describe, and there is no output schema to fall back on for return-value 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the parameter baseline is 4. The description needs no parameter explanation, and the reference to field keys is about output semantics, not input 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 clearly states that the tool exposes every field of the Malta Property Tax enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is clearly distinct from submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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 description gives clear usage context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies when to use the tool (before submission, to learn the field structure), though it does not explicitly mention enquiry_describe as an alternative.

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 the validate-then-confirm flow, the returned summary/consent line/token, the email-activation gate ('link they must click before any provider sees it'), and the precise scope of consent (up to three notaries, ability to stop further sharing). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a write tool.

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 framing ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') before the mechanical steps, and every sentence carries procedural or legal weight. The consent sentence is long and dense but is quoted verbatim for accuracy, so it earns its length.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description explains what Step 1 returns and the downstream email activation, so an agent knows both the inputs and the expected flow. Nothing needed to invoke either step 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it ties 'answers' to the field keys from the enquiry_fields sibling, explains the confirmation token originates from Step 1, and elaborates what consent=true asserts.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Malta Property Tax') and immediately disambiguates intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The two-step contract further distinguishes it from the read-only sibling tools enquiry_fields and 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?

Explicit when-to-call sequencing: Step 1 requires answers plus consent=true, Step 2 requires the confirmation token and only proceeds 'if the person agrees'. It also names the condition that decides between the two calls, 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.