site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes the tool's informational, read-only nature clear by saying it 'states' and 'returns' content, and it details what that content is. It does not add an explicit 'no side effects' line, but that is strongly implied for a descriptive 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?

The description is three tight sentences, front-loads the most important instruction ('Read first'), and every remaining sentence adds substance: what it explains, what it does not involve, and what it returns. There is no 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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the relationship to submit_enquiry, the content returned, and the reassurance about no purchase, payment, or guaranteed quote. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and 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?

The input schema has zero properties and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately spends no space on parameter semantics, matching the baseline for a 0-parameter 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and enumerates the returned content. It clearly distinguishes this meta-explanatory tool from actually submitting an enquiry, and its relationship to submit_enquiry is explicit.

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?

It opens with 'Read first,' which gives an explicit usage directive and positions the tool as the precursor to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention the enquiry_fields sibling, but the intended workflow placement is clear.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned and how it connects to submit_enquiry, implying a read-only metadata lookup. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not describe the response format, or mention any access considerations.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with 'Every field of the Oklahoma Foundation Repair Cost enquiry' and immediately enumerating the included metadata. The follow-up instruction about submit_enquiry is a single, purposeful sentence with 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?

For a zero-parameter metadata retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the agent will receive and how to use it downstream. It covers the practical need: know the field keys, required status, help text, and options before submitting an enquiry.

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 properties, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that the returned field keys should be used as keys when submitting answers, which connects the output to 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 clearly states what the tool provides: every field of the Oklahoma Foundation Repair Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. The title reinforces this by calling out 'the questions the enquiry asks.' It differentiates from submit_enquiry by focusing on field metadata, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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 instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives clear, actionable context for when to use this tool: before submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the connection to submit_enquiry is a strong usage signal.

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 behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses validation, token issuance, the need for the person's agreement, email delivery, the click-before-provider-visible condition, and the exact consent wording. No assumptions are left hidden.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: the non-purchase disclaimer, the two-step flow, the token handoff, and the consent text are all essential. The 'Step 1:' and 'Step 2:' structure makes the sequence easy to follow without waste.

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 complex two-step submission tool, the description covers the full lifecycle: prerequisites (answers from enquiry_fields), validation, token return, user approval, final submission, email notification, and the provider-visible condition. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description stating what step 1 returns and what step 2 accomplishes.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning beyond this by mapping parameters to the two steps (consent=true in both calls, confirmation only in step 2) and defining exactly what the answers object should contain (keyed by field key from enquiry_fields). This extra context lifts it to a 4.

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 the specific action 'Submits an enquiry to Oklahoma Foundation Repair Cost' and immediately disambiguates from purchases or quotes. It also references enquiry_fields as the source of field keys and sibling tools with different purposes (describe, get fields), making it 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?

Provides an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also clarifies this is not a purchase and that the recipient must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry, guiding when and how to invoke the tool.

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