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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double-submit consent gate, and the post-submit email-confirmation step that gates provider visibility. It omits edge behavior such as what happens on failed validation or token expiry, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the disqualifying caveat, then the two steps in order — a good structure for an agent reading top-down. The consent sentence is duplicated verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is the one redundancy keeping it off a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it does: step 1's summary, consent line and token, and step 2's submission plus the confirmation email with its click-to-reveal link. Combined with the nested answers object being tied back to enquiry_fields, an agent has everything needed to call both steps correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the answers object is keyed by field key sourced from the enquiry_fields sibling, and that confirmation is the step-1 token echoed back only after approval. That sequencing context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (submits an enquiry to a named provider) and immediately scopes it against the most likely misreading — 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the sibling source of the field keys (enquiry_fields), so the agent can distinguish it from the adjacent tools.

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?

It lays out an explicit two-step protocol with the exact condition gating each call: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 runs 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the token. The when-not is stated too (not a purchase, not a quote), leaving nothing to inference.

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