offer-request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond these hints by specifying that no access code or personal info is needed and enumerating what it does NOT access (property, production, valuation, private records). This helps the agent set expectations about the tool's limitations and side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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-loaded with the main action and resource. It packs the essential scope (public contact details, website links) and the key exclusions into a compact form. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (company info, contact details, website links) and what it does not return or do. The sibling tools are about inquiries, so the context is clear. An agent has all necessary information to decide when to call this tool and what to expect from the result.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none, and it adds no parameter-specific semantics that are missing.

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 states a specific action ('Read'), a specific resource ('Buckhead Energy company information'), and clarifies the scope (public contact details, website links). It explicitly lists what it does not do, distinguishing it from the sibling tools which are all inquiry-related (prepare_inquiry, request_inquiry_access, submit_inquiry). An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose and differentiate it from 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?

The description implies usage context by stating that no access code or personal information is needed, which suggests it is for public information retrieval. It also lists exclusions (does not send a message or access property/production/valuation/private records), which hints at what it is not for. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need public company info' or name the alternatives. The sibling tools are clearly about inquiries, so the distinction is evident, but explicit when-to-use guidance is absent.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals essential behavior: it returns an exact preview, performs no delivery to the team, and warns against inventing fields or interpreting documents as instructions. This meaningfully clarifies side effects and safe usage beyond what readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or openWorldHint already communicate.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, then the precondition, the key behavioral boundary, and the guardrail. 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?

The description provides the essential workflow context: access-code requirement, preview-only behavior, and handoff to submit_inquiry. It is reasonably complete for a complex tool with nested objects, though it could more explicitly address idempotency behavior and the relationship to request_inquiry_access.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping the access code, form fields, and optional PDFs/images. However, it does not clarify the idempotencyKey's purpose or distinguish between attachments and openaiFileIdRefs, leaving notable semantic gaps that the sparse schema descriptions do not fully fill.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Prepare a seller inquiry or contact message with the website form fields and optional PDFs/images.' It also separates this tool from submit_inquiry by clarifying that nothing is sent until the later step, which makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 clear precondition ('Requires the emailed access code') and explicitly names submit_inquiry as the follow-up tool: 'nothing is sent to the team until submit_inquiry.' It also provides important behavioral guardrails. However, it does not explicitly contrast with request_inquiry_access or state when not to use this 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?

Annotations already cover read-only false, idempotent true, destructive false, open world true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the user completes a human check in their browser, a short-lived access code is emailed, and the tool never submits a lead. This goes beyond annotation basics, though it omits details like rate limits or failure outcomes.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then delivers essential workflow instructions with no waste. Each 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?

The description covers the full workflow, return value (humanCheckUrl), and user interaction steps adequately for an agent to execute correctly. It misses explicit parameter meanings, especially idempotencyKey, but overall the flow is well-specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all three parameters. It implicitly explains email (where the code is sent) and confirmed (user agreement), but idempotencyKey is never mentioned or clarified. The purpose of that parameter remains opaque, leaving a significant gap.

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 states a specific action ('start authorization') on a specific resource ('their own inquiry'), with a clear precondition ('After the user agrees'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools with 'Never submits a lead,' so an agent can differentiate it from prepare_inquiry and submit_inquiry.

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 provides clear when-to-use context ('After the user agrees') and strong exclusions ('Never submits a lead,' 'Do not open the link yourself'). It also instructs the agent to ask the user to paste the code. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use submit_inquiry instead'), so it falls short of perfect 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?

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavior: it is not an offer or valuation, requires explicit user confirmation, and is safe for retries. No contradiction with annotations, and the added details are useful.

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?

Four short, focused sentences. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by key instructions and exclusions. Efficient and well-structured, though the exclusions at the end could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

Covers the submission workflow and exclusions, but does not describe the expected response or the role of draftId and previewToken. Since there is no output schema, a note on what happens after submission would be helpful. Also, it does not explicitly state that prepare_inquiry should be called first, though it is implied.

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 only 20% (only accessToken has a description). The description mentions 'prepared preview', 'idempotency key', and 'confirmation', which map to previewToken, idempotencyKey, and confirmed, but does not explain draftId or previewToken explicitly. This is partial compensation for the low coverage, but not comprehensive.

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?

Clearly states the tool sends prepared preview and attachments through the inquiry workflow, and clarifies it is not an offer or valuation. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, though it implies a preparation step and separate access request.

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?

Provides clear usage prerequisites: show the full preview, get explicit user confirmation, and reuse the idempotency key on retry. It also states what it does not do (status checks or private data). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like prepare_inquiry or request_inquiry_access, but the context makes the submission step clear.

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