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, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the two-call validation flow, the return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the email-link gate before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact downstream effect (contact details sent to up to three contractors, per-firm notification, opt-out ability).

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 identity and the critical negative framing ('NOT a purchase') before the mechanical steps, and every sentence carries operational content. The full consent quotation is long and duplicates the schema's consent description, which is the main (minor) 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 three-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the two-step protocol, what each step returns, how to source 'answers', when to pass 'confirmation', and the real-world consequence of consent.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning: answers must be keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is only supplied on the second call after the person approves the summary. That extends beyond the schema's standalone field descriptions, though the consent wording is largely duplicated from the schema.

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'), names the recipient ('Missouri Foundation Repair Cost'), and immediately bounds the scope ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it from the sibling metadata tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which can only read fields rather than submit anything.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-call guidance: Step 1 with answers + consent=true returns a summary and token, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the token submits. It also names the dependency on enquiry_fields for field keys and states the exclusions (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote).

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