site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; and it is free. It also discloses what the tool returns. It could more explicitly say that invoking enquiry_describe itself has no side effects, but 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' makes this adequately clear.

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 with 'Read first' and each sentence adds useful information: purpose, non-purchase guarantees, free nature, and return contents. It is slightly repetitive with the title's mention of 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote,' but it is still compact and well organized.

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 tool is simple, has zero parameters, and no output schema, the description adequately explains its purpose and return content. It tells the agent what submit_enquiry does, what is not guaranteed, and what information will be returned. It could more explicitly relate itself to enquiry_fields, but overall it is complete enough for safe 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 schema is fully covered by an empty properties object, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 this tool explains what submit_enquiry does, including that it starts an enquiry with human providers and returns consent/confirmation details. The title is somewhat confusing because it reads like a description of the enquiry outcome rather than the describe tool's own purpose, but the description resolves this.

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 phrase 'Read first' strongly implies this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry, which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the priority hint is meaningful and sufficient for a description tool.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's informational nature by enumerating the field attributes returned. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or that no side effects occur, which would have strengthened behavioral transparency for an agent with no annotation support.

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-loads the core purpose and contents, and then adds a concise workflow pointer to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or padding.

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 field-listing tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what data will be returned, that no arguments are needed, and how the results connect to submit_enquiry. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit enumeration of returned attributes.

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 zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no param info, but none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists every field of the Texas Water Damage Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It clearly distinguishes this from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This is specific and actionable.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: before submitting answers, to learn the available fields and keys. It also names submit_enquiry as the destination for the returned keys. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against enquiry_describe, but the intended workflow is clear.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses the two-step validation/submission handshake, the side effect of an email with a required click-through before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. It also manages outcome expectations by warning the result is not a 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 long but earns its length given the two-step, consent-gated flow; the critical 'NOT a purchase' disambiguation is front-loaded and each sentence conveys workflow information. Minor redundancy: the consent wording is duplicated verbatim from the schema's consent property description.

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 complex two-step tool with no output schema, it covers what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the email click-through requirement, and the condition for valid step-2 invocation. Gaps are minor and mostly concern failure modes, such as behavior when consent is false or tokens are mismatched, and what step 2 returns immediately.

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% and the schema already documents each parameter meaningfully (including the full consent line and where the confirmation token comes from), so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow semantics: which parameters belong in step 1 versus step 2 and that answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys — genuinely additive, though modest on top of an already-rich schema.

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 Texas Water Damage Cost' — and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The title reinforces the two-step nature, and naming enquiry_fields positions this clearly as the submission step among its 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers and consent=true to validate and obtain a token, Step 2 only if the person agrees, reusing the same answers with the confirmation token. It states when not to use it ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and points to enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, covering when/when-not/alternatives.

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