site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that nothing is bought, no quote is guaranteed, and it's free, which clarifies the read-only and non-committal nature. It also states what the tool returns, making its behavior transparent. It doesn't explicitly state it's a read operation, but the context implies it. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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 key instruction 'Read first,' and each sentence serves a purpose: stating the tool's role and detailing what it returns. It's efficient and avoids redundancy, 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 an informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the tool's purpose, its content (what it returns), and its behavioral implications (free, no guarantee). Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke or interpret this tool 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 and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), so there's nothing to document. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which compensates for the lack of params. The baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description enriches the user's understanding of the tool's output without needing to discuss parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to read first and understand what submit_enquiry does. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as a meta-tool that explains the submission process, not the submission itself. The verb 'describes' and resource 'submit_enquiry' are specific and unambiguous.

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' gives explicit usage guidance, implying it should be consulted before submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the tool returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method), which helps the agent decide when to call it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to enquiry_fields, leaving a slight gap in routing.

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 transparency burden. It states exactly what metadata is returned and, by pointing to submit_enquiry for sending answers, implies this tool is a read-only lookup rather than a submission action. It could explicitly state 'read-only' or 'does not submit', but the wording is sufficient for this metadata 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the complete set of returned field attributes, and the second gives the actionable relation to submit_enquiry.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the field metadata contents and how to use the results with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential 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 input schema is empty and has 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the field keys are the connection to submit_enquiry, which goes beyond what the empty schema can provide.

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 the tool's resource: every field of the Saudi Company Setup Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by instructing that answers should be passed there keyed by field key, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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 downstream usage instruction: use the field keys to pass answers to submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool versus the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 full weight, and it discloses critical behavioral traits: the two-step validation/submission flow, the requirement to show the summary and consent line, the email with a link the person must click before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. It also explicitly states this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 dense but well-structured with explicit 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' sections, and every sentence carries essential operational information. The non-purchase warning is front-loaded, preventing a common misuse immediately.

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 having no output schema, the description specifies exactly what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the agent should do with those values. It also covers post-submission behavior (email link) and consent semantics, making the tool fully callable without additional 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: which parameters to send in step 1, which additional parameter to include in step 2, that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and that consent must match the exact quoted text. This creates a full call protocol the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a specific verb ('submits an enquiry'), a specific resource (Saudi Company Setup Cost), and clearly differentiates the tool from a purchase or a guaranteed quote. It also names the process distinctly from sibling tools by describing the two-step submission flow.

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 gives explicit step-by-step usage guidance: call with answers and consent first, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only after agreement. It references enquiry_fields for keying answers, which implicitly routes the agent to the correct sibling tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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