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, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that nothing is submitted on step 1, that a confirmation token is required for step 2, that an email verification click is required before any provider sees the enquiry, and it quotes the exact consent scope (up to three operators, name disclosure, opting out). These are non-obvious side effects and trust/consent requirements an agent could not infer.

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 most decision-relevant fact (not a purchase) and organizes the rest as Step 1 / Step 2, which is easy to follow. However it is a long run-on block, and the full consent string is repeated verbatim from the consent parameter schema, which is redundant.

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 stateful two-call flow with a nested answers object, no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: sequencing, what step 1 returns, the required token round-trip, and the downstream email verification. 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; the description goes further by tying 'answers' keys to the enquiry_fields sibling and by specifying that 'confirmation' is the step-1 token and is only supplied after the person approves the summary. The consent text is duplicated verbatim from the schema, adding no new meaning there.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Ski Transfer Quotes') and immediately disambiguates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, so an agent can distinguish it from its 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 an explicit two-step protocol with conditions: step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, step 2 fires 'only if the person agrees'. The gate conditions (person must see the summary, must consent) are spelled out rather than implied.

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