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, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the validation-then-submit sequence, the returned summary/consent line/token, the mandatory email click before providers see anything, distribution to up to three firms chosen by the vendor, and that the person can stop further firms. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation 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-loaded with the critical framing (not a purchase, two steps) and largely free of filler. Minor cost: the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim, duplicating the schema's own consent description, which makes the text longer than strictly needed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does — summary, consent line, confirmation token from step 1, and the downstream email link from step 2. Combined with the consent meaning, an agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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 meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'confirmation' is the step-1 token used only after the person approves the summary, and that 'answers' is keyed by enquiry_fields keys. It does not, however, enumerate the answer fields themselves, which live in the sibling tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Marine Insurance Cost') and immediately scopes it against likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also ties itself to the sibling tool by noting answers are 'keyed by field key from 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the exact conditions that gate step 2 ('only if the person agrees') and the required arguments for each call. It also states when not to treat the result as a quote or purchase, 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.