site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool also returns who receives details, consent wording, and how confirmation occurs. This gives the agent a solid safety and expectation profile for the action being described.

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 'Read first' and then delivers the essential facts in a compact list-like flow: no purchase, no guarantee, free, and returned details. The title is somewhat sentence-like and long, but the body has little waste and earns each clause.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the key content and reassurances, but there is some ambiguity about whether the returns described belong to enquiry_describe or submit_enquiry. Saying 'Also returns who receives the details' is helpful but not fully explicit about this tool's own output versus the sibling tool's behavior.

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, so the schema already offers complete coverage and leaves nothing ambiguous. The description adds no parameter syntax, which is appropriate; there are no inputs to explain. A baseline of 4 is warranted since no parameter documentation is needed.

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 enquiry_describe as a plain-language explainer: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and 'Read first' signal it is a pre-submission informational tool. The title reinforces that the result is an enquiry with a human, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing rather than performing the action.

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' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before taking action, providing a clear when-to-use instruction. It also implicitly distinguishes this tool from submit_enquiry: users should read this description before submitting. It does not enumerate moment-of-use alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is strong enough.

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. It explains the returned content but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor does it mention any authentication or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated, leaving some transparency gap.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the output content, and the second gives a direct usage hint. Every word earns its place.

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 fully explains what the tool returns (the field attributes) and how to use it (with submit_enquiry). It also scopes the enquiry to 'Ohio Roof Replacement Cost', providing necessary context. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain, which is appropriate.

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 Ohio Roof Replacement Cost enquiry, listing the specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It also references the sibling submit_enquiry, making its purpose distinct from simply describing the enquiry.

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 clear usage context by instructing that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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 must fully disclose behavior. It does: it states the operation is not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote, requires consent, sends an email with a clickable link before providers see it, and explains what step 1 returns versus step 2. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 core purpose and then structured into clear steps. It is longer than a typical description, but every sentence carries necessary process information. A slightly tighter phrasing could exist, but the organization and lack of fluff justify a 4.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 leads to (email with a link). It covers the required consent text and the two-step nature completely. No critical information an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema descriptions cover each parameter, but the description adds meaning beyond them: it ties answers to enquiry_fields, explains that consent must be true only when the exact consent text is agreed to, and clarifies that the confirmation parameter is the token from step 1. This enriches the schema with critical workflow context.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Ohio Roof Replacement Cost.' It immediately clarifies exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references the enquiry_fields sibling for the answer keying, so an agent can distinguish this from other tools without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly lays out a two-step usage flow with conditions: step 1 requires answers and consent=true and yields a summary and token; step 2 only after the person agrees, reusing the same answers and adding the token. It also states the exact consent text. This is far beyond minimal usage guidance and leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke each call.

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