site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the enquiry flow involves nothing being bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also says the tool 'returns' recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation process, making the informational, non-mutating nature reasonably clear. It could be more explicit that enquiry_describe itself performs no submission, but the framing and wording are sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first.' Each sentence contributes distinct value: what the tool states, the key caveats, and the return content. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the categories of returned information: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. It also gives enough domain context to interpret the enquiry flow. It does not provide an exact sample or mention enquiry_fields, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is adequate.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter details because none are needed. It does not invent parameters that do not exist.

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 what the tool does: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Ski Transfer Quotes' and details the scope (human providers, no purchase, no guaranteed quote). It also lists what the tool returns, making it much more than a label or tautology. It is clearly distinct from the siblings because it describes rather than submits or collects 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?

The instruction 'Read first' gives an explicit placement cue: use this before submit_enquiry. It also clarifies the context and expectations of an enquiry, which helps an agent decide when to surface this information. However, it does not mention the sibling enquiry_fields 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes what the tool returns: all field metadata. It implies a read-only introspection behavior, which is clear enough for an agent to know not to expect side effects.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists exactly what fields are included. No filler or redundant phrasing exists.

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 is sufficient: it enumerates the return contents and explains how the result relates to submit_enquiry. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to do with the response.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to document any. It still adds useful semantic context by indicating that the field keys returned by this tool are the same keys used in submit_enquiry, which helps the agent connect the two tools.

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 does: it returns every field of the Ski Transfer Quotes enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This distinguishes it from submit_enquiry, which is referenced as the destination for the answers.

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 clear context by explaining that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by the field key, implying this tool is used to discover valid keys before submitting. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, 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 available, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the two-step nature, consent requirements, the exact consent text, and the fact that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, which is critical non-obvious behavior.

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: the key warning is front-loaded, followed by clearly numbered steps and the exact consent text. Every sentence contributes essential information, with no filler or repetition.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email behavior. For a three-parameter, two-step tool with non-obvious consent and confirmation requirements, this is complete and sufficient for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters themselves are already documented. The description adds valuable workflow semantics beyond the schema, such as requiring the same answers in step 2 and explaining that the confirmation token comes from step 1 and is only used after the person approves the summary.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Ski Transfer Quotes.' It is immediately differentiated from a purchase or a guaranteed quote, and the two-step human-provider workflow is explicit, so an agent can tell this tool apart from read-only siblings like enquiry_fields and 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 description gives a concrete step-by-step usage path: first validate and obtain a confirmation token, then resubmit only after the person agrees. It also states what the tool is not for ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, which clearly orients the agent.

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