site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It openly states the behavioral boundaries: 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' It also discloses what the tool returns—who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms—leaving little ambiguity about the tool's behavior or output.

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 front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first,' which immediately signals priority. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, what it does not do, and what it returns. There is no filler or 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, no-output-schema descriptive tool, this is complete. The description explains the tool's purpose, the scope (Missouri Foundation Repair Cost), the relationship to submit_enquiry, and the expected return content. An agent can understand exactly what it will get and why it matters without needing additional schema or annotation information.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the description correctly avoids parameter-level detail. The input schema is already complete and there is nothing meaningful to add. The baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 a specific verb ('states plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Missouri Foundation Repair Cost'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by positioning itself as the descriptive companion rather than the action-taking tool. The title reinforces this by framing the tool as 'What you get' rather than a transaction.

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 opening 'Read first' is an explicit usage directive telling the agent to consult this tool before proceeding. The description also clarifies what the underlying submit_enquiry flow is not (no purchase, no order, no payment), which helps an agent avoid misusing it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or spell out when not to use the tool, but the context is strong.

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 of disclosing behavior. It does describe the output contents in detail and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly state that the tool takes no arguments, returns a list/object of fields, or has no side effects.

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, tightly packed sentence that lists exactly what the tool returns and adds a practical integration hint. There is no redundant wording 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 without an output schema, the description explains the return values well enough for an agent to understand what it will receive. It could be even more complete by stating the response format or distinguishing itself from enquiry_describe, but these are minor gaps.

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 schema already covers this completely, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output and integration rather than adding unnecessary 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 states that the tool exposes every field of the enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This is specific about the resource and content, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists' and does not differentiate itself from sibling tool 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 provides no guidance on when to call this tool versus enquiry_describe or when not to use it. The hint to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key is useful after retrieval, but it does not explain the tool's selection context.

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 of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains that the tool validates, returns a summary and consent line, requires a confirmation token, sends an email after submission, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the email 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 average, but it earns the length by explaining a genuinely two-step process with a consent requirement. The key non-purchase/non-quote distinction is front-loaded, and the stepwise structure makes the procedure easy 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It tells the agent what to do in step 1, what to show the person, when to proceed to step 2, what to pass, what happens after submission, and the exact consent text. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 meaningful operational context: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and the confirmation parameter is the token from step 1. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 and specifically states that the tool submits an enquiry to a named provider, explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and the two-step nature is immediately visible in the title and description. This differentiates 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 gives explicit step-by-step usage guidance: step 1 call with answers and consent=true to get a token, then step 2 call with the same answers plus the token only if the person agrees. It also states what is NOT this tool's purpose, which helps an agent decide 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.