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 behavioral disclosure. It openly states that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also details what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation process). This is transparent about both the tool's own output and the underlying enquiry process.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the directive 'Read first.' Every phrase adds value: it states the purpose, the nature of the enquiry, key caveats, and the return content. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is efficient and clear.

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 meta-descriptive tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the context of the underlying submit_enquiry action. An agent can confidently use this tool to understand the enquiry flow without missing critical details.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to describe, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly focuses on behavior and output instead.

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's purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on PRO Services Prices, distinguishing it from purchase/quote actions. It explicitly mentions the tool's output (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method), making its role unambiguous. The title reinforces the purpose, and the 'Read first' instruction differentiates it from siblings.

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 opens with 'Read first,' which is an explicit directive on when to use this tool (before engaging with submit_enquiry). It does not directly mention alternatives like enquiry_fields, but the contrast with 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' clarifies the context. The usage guidance is clear enough, though it could more explicitly state 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals what fields are returned but does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires no auth. The zero-parameter design makes major risks unlikely, so this is adequate but not enriched.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the resource ('Every field of the PRO Services Prices enquiry'), enumerates the field attributes, and closes with a usage pointer. Every phrase adds value and 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and how the result is meant to be used (keyed answer submission). It lacks an explicit statement of the response format, but for such a simple read-only listing this is a minor gap.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that returned field keys are the same keys used to structure answers for submit_enquiry, which helps the agent connect the output to the next step even though there are no input parameters to document.

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 returns every field of the PRO Services Prices enquiry and enumerates what those fields contain (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch', and it does not distinguish the tool from the sibling 'enquiry_describe', so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies how the output should be used by saying 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', but it never directly states when to use this tool versus 'enquiry_describe' or 'submit_enquiry'. There is no explicit context about prerequisites or exclusion conditions, leaving the timing of use to inference.

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 it well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary, consent line and token; that the enquiry is not submitted until step 2; that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees it; and that details go to up to three agents who can be stopped. This is far beyond what the bare schema reveals.

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 critical distinction ('NOT a purchase') and then structures the two steps clearly. It is long, and the full consent paragraph is duplicated verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is mildly redundant, but the length is largely earned by the two-step workflow.

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?

Despite no output schema and a nested-object parameter, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what happens after step 2, so an agent knows how to act on each response. Nothing essential to invoking 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real workflow semantics: 'answers' are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true only after agreement, and 'confirmation' is the token from step 1. That explains the intended use pattern of each parameter beyond the field-level schema text.

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 human providers) and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also names the sibling source for its input keys ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), so an agent can distinguish it from the read-only siblings without opening a schema.

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 explicit conditional guidance: Step 1 with answers+consent, Step 2 only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It routes the agent to enquiry_fields for keys. It does not say when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or how to recover from a failed validation, leaving a small gap.

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