site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it states that the tool is free, creates no purchase/order/obligation, and does not guarantee a quote. It also reveals what the output covers (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), providing a clear behavioral picture.

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 compact: one imperative lead-in, one sentence defining what the tool says about submit_enquiry, and one sentence listing output contents. No filler 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back and why this is safe/appropriate. For a zero-parameter informational tool, it covers the necessary decision context and return expectations.

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?

There are no parameters and the schema is 100% covered, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on return/behavior semantics instead of inventing parameter details.

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 purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does rather than performing the enquiry, and the title emphasizes it is informational ('What you get'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by explicitly saying nothing is bought, ordered or paid for, and no quote is guaranteed.

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' gives an explicit signal that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly rule out alternative tools or mention enquiry_fields, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance, but the intended 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 provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses what the tool returns: field metadata including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also explains how the returned field keys relate to submit_enquiry. It is clearly a read-only metadata operation, though it does not explicitly state side-effect absence or response shape.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core content is front-loaded, and the pointer to submit_enquiry adds actionable value without redundancy.

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 complete: it explains what each field record contains and how to use the result with submit_enquiry. No critical information for calling this tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is little for the description to add. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details.

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: every field of the Malta Residency Cost enquiry, and lists what each field includes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It stops short of a 5 because it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch' and does not differentiate 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 concrete usage context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this tool should be used before submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or provide exclusions.

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 fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the requirement for explicit consent, the exact consent wording, the email with a click link, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence carries necessary operational information. It is front-loaded with the most important caveat ('NOT a purchase'), then logically sequences Step 1 and Step 2 with no filler.

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 having no output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 results in (submission and a required email link click). For a high-complexity, two-step, consent-gated tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Although the schema already documents all three parameters, the description adds essential semantics: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent must be true only when the person agrees to the quoted line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 Malta Residency Cost') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also outlines a distinct two-step submission flow, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and 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 description provides explicit step-by-step guidance: call once with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, including the confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys, giving the agent a clear path to the correct supporting sibling tool.

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