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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token; that step 2 must reuse the same answers plus the token; that an email click-through is required before any provider sees the enquiry; and it states the exact scope of consent (contact details to up to three contractors, emailed per firm, revocable).

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 step-by-step structure is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational meaning, but the consent text is quoted verbatim and is already duplicated inside the schema's consent parameter description, which is redundant bulk.

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, yet the description fills that gap by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the final outcome is (email with a click-through link). For a nested-object, non-purchase flow with no annotations, this is complete enough to execute 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that 'answers' is keyed by field keys obtained from enquiry_fields, and it clarifies the lifecycle of 'confirmation' (returned by step 1, must be echoed in step 2 alongside the same answers). Some overlap with the schema's consent text keeps it from a 5.

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 to Ohio Roof Replacement Cost') and immediately scopes it against misconceptions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also names the sibling it depends on ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), so an agent can distinguish it from 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?

Gives an explicit two-step sequence with the condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees') and the prerequisite of fetching field keys from enquiry_fields. Nothing about when or how to invoke it is left to inference.

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