site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a good job: it states the tool is free, involves no purchase/order/payment, offers no guaranteed quote, and returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. It stops short of an explicit 'this call is read-only and has no side effects' statement, though the informational framing 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 compact and front-loaded: 'Read first' signals urgency, then the purpose, key exclusions, and returned content are each stated in a single efficient sentence. Every clause adds distinct value, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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 informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool explains, what it does not guarantee, and exactly what the returned text covers, which is enough to invoke it correctly and set user expectations.

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 already fully documents everything there is to document. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are 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 opens with 'Read first' and explicitly states the tool's job: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does.' It names the exact scope (Conveyancing Fees NZ) and immediately distinguishes itself from the actual submission tool by saying nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed. The title further reinforces that this is an informational description, not a transaction.

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' is a clear directive that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry, and the description clarifies the outcome users should expect. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state conditions like 'use submit_enquiry to actually send' or 'use enquiry_fields for the form fields,' so the routing guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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 must carry the behavioral burden. It tells the agent the tool returns field metadata and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, the output shape, or whether field definitions may change. This is adequate for a metadata getter but not fully transparent.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first enumerates the full payload and the second gives cross-tool usage guidance. No filler or redundancy; the key information is front-loaded.

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, the description covers the return contents and the expected downstream mapping to submit_enquiry. It does not specify the response envelope or data type, but with no output schema and a trivial invocation this is a minor 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 takes zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description correctly focuses on the output content and how to use it with submit_enquiry. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is solid.

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 identifies the resource ('every field of the Conveyancing Fees NZ enquiry') and the specific data delivered (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit action verb and does not contrast itself with enquiry_describe, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 an explicit downstream instruction: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This clarifies how the output should be used, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe, leaving the sibling relationship implicit.

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 does so: it discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that Step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that Step 2 actually submits, that an email verification click is required before providers see it, and the exact scope of consent (up to three NZ property lawyers who contact the person directly). This is a mutation tool with real legal/consent consequences and the behaviour is fully disclosed.

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?

Well front-loaded and structured as Step 1 / Step 2 with the scope warning first, and every sentence does work. The one inefficiency is that the consent sentence is reproduced verbatim from the consent parameter's schema description, which is duplication rather than added value.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values and it does: Step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token, and Step 2 returns a submitted enquiry plus an email link. Combined with the nested answers object and the two-step flow, an agent has everything needed to call this 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: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true is tied to a specific agreed statement, and the confirmation token is explicitly defined as the value returned by Step 1 and only to be supplied after the person approves the summary. That workflow semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Conveyancing Fees NZ') and immediately bounds the scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote,' which is the exact confusion an agent would otherwise have. It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so the tool is distinguishable from its neighbours.

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 the exact conditions for each call: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, Step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token. It also states the gating rule that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, 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.