site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool returns content, implying a read-only informational operation, but it never explicitly states that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects or that it does not submit an enquiry. The "nothing is bought" reassurance refers to submit_enquiry, not to this tool directly.

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 short, front-loaded with "Read first," and every sentence contributes useful detail: what the tool states, what it returns, and key reassurances about cost and commitment. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the subject (submit_enquiry), gives usage timing, and itemizes the returned information. No additional context is needed for an agent to call this tool 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, which matches the baseline of 4. There is no parameter information for the description to add, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's return content instead of any inputs.

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 says the tool states plainly what submit_enquiry does and returns specific content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, though it does not explicitly differentiate against 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?

"Read first" is a clear timing directive, positioning this tool as the orientation step before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention enquiry_fields, but the context strongly implies when this descriptive tool is appropriate.

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 burden. It explains the output content (field attributes) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, error behavior, or rate limits. For a simple listing tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the specific attributes returned. It also includes a practical pointer to submit_enquiry. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what fields are returned and how to use them. It could mention the output format (e.g., a list of objects) or explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but overall it is sufficient for a no-arg 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 tool has zero parameters, and the description implies no input is required ('Every field of the enquiry'). Since there are no parameters, the description need not elaborate on them. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no ambiguity.

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 returns every field of the Marine Insurance Cost enquiry, specifying the exact attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). This is a specific verb-resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'enquiry_describe', but the focus on fields and submission linkage makes the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 a usage hint ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like enquiry_describe. It implies this is for fetching field definitions, but lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' statement.

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 behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, the step-1 response contents, the consent requirement with exact wording, the email with a required click before provider visibility, and the fact that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 dense paragraph but front-loads the core action and exclusion before stepping through the protocol. Every sentence carries necessary workflow or consent information, and the Step 1/Step 2 structure is easy for an agent to follow.

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 two-step, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers prerequisites (answers keyed by field key), the call sequence, the return values from step 1, the user-approval gate, and the post-submission email-link behavior. The main omissions, such as validation-failure handling, are minor given how much context is provided.

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% and the schema already explains each parameter precisely. The description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema by explaining that confirmation is the step-1 token, that answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields, and that consent must be true only after the person has read the exact consent line.

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 opens with a specific action ('Submits an enquiry') and names the target service, Marine Insurance Cost. It explicitly scopes what the tool is not (a purchase or guaranteed quote), and the field-key reference ties it to enquiry_fields so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling describe/fields 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?

It provides a concrete two-step call protocol: first call with answers and consent=true, then a second call only after the person approves and with the confirmation token added. It also states the condition for proceeding and the exclusion ('NOT a purchase'), so the agent knows both when to invoke it and when not to.

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