site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so excellently. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and what information is returned.

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 the critical guidance 'Read first.' Every sentence earns its place: it explains the tool's purpose, explicitly negates purchase/payment/guarantee assumptions, and summarizes the returned content without redundancy.

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 descriptive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fully self-sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and what information will be returned, leaving no critical 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter space by definition. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns and its non-action nature, exceeding the baseline expectation for a parameterless 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 identifies the tool as an explanatory companion to submit_enquiry, stating that it 'describes what submit_enquiry does' rather than performing the submission. It is immediately distinguishable from submit_enquiry (which actually starts an enquiry) and enquiry_fields (which likely handles field details).

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?

'Read first' explicitly signals that this tool should be used before interacting with submit_enquiry, giving the agent clear context for when to call it. It does not spell out exclusions or compare against enquiry_fields, but the intended usage is evident.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what the tool provides: field metadata including allowed options where present, and it connects the result to the submit_enquiry workflow. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, but the metadata-focused content strongly implies it.

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 compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core scope, enumerates the relevant field attributes, and ends with a practical, actionable instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job specifying what the response contains: field keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and allowed options. It also situates the tool within the larger enquiry workflow. A small gap is the lack of explicit context about how enquiry_describe differs, but this does not prevent 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description usefully clarifies that the returned field keys are the keys to use when calling submit_enquiry.

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 as returning every field of the Texas Foundation Repair Cost enquiry along with attributes like key, label, type, and required. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe beyond the implied focus on 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 description gives actionable usage guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by the field key. This makes the intended workflow clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or provide exclusion criteria.

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, and it does so excellently. It discloses the two-step stateful behavior, validation and returned artifacts (summary, consent line, token), the requirement for explicit person agreement, and that the enquiry is only visible to providers after the person clicks the emailed link. It also supplies the exact consent wording.

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 front-loaded and dense, with no filler. It is somewhat long, but the complexity of the two-step flow and the need to state the exact consent line justify the length. Minor redundancy with the title's 'two steps; not a purchase' is acceptable and reinforcing.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by explaining both step outputs, the required sequencing, the consent condition, and the post-submission email verification flow. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly through both steps.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description substantially enriches parameter meaning. It explains that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true, and that the confirmation token is the artifact from Step 1 required only in Step 2. This maps each parameter to the exact phase of the workflow.

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 Texas Foundation Repair Cost'. It immediately clarifies what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and that it is a two-step process, which clearly distinguishes it from a simple submission tool.

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 invocation guidance: Step 1 with answers/consent, then Step 2 with the confirmation token only after approval. It references enquiry_fields for constructing keys, which helps route the agent to the sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or directly contrast it with enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields beyond that reference.

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