site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the enquiry is free, and that the response includes recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It slightly blurs the line between what this tool does and what submit_enquiry does, but overall it is transparent about the non-transactional nature of the process.

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-loads the imperative 'Read first,' and every sentence contributes meaningful context: what the tool is for, what is not happening, and what the response includes. There is no wasted wording.

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, no-output-schema descriptive tool, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the ordering relative to submit_enquiry, the constraints of the enquiry process, and the key content of the returned information. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is satisfactory.

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 clear purpose: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does on Abnormal Load Quotes' and returns explanatory content. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing that action rather than performing it, though it does not explicitly compare itself to the other sibling, enquiry_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?

'Read first' gives explicit ordering guidance: this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It provides clear context about the workflow and the fact that the enquiry is free and non-binding, but it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or how it compares with enquiry_fields.

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 of explaining behavior. It does disclose what information is returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what the exact output format is, or any edge cases such as empty option lists or dynamic fields.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the full content of the tool, and the second sentence immediately connects the output to the related submission tool. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, enumerates the returned attributes, and explains how the data should be used with submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit about return structure or differences from enquiry_describe, but those are minor gaps.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; the empty schema already makes this clear, and the description reinforces that answers are keyed by field keys rather than by positional arguments.

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 the tool exposes every field of the Abnormal Load Quotes enquiry, enumerating the attributes included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It separates itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers are passed using these field keys, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe.

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 instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies that this tool should be used to discover the fields needed for submission, which provides useful workflow context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of enquiry_describe or give any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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 does so thoroughly. It discloses that the first call only validates and returns a summary and token, the second call actually submits, consent has a precise meaning, and nothing reaches providers until the email link is clicked.

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 every sentence earns its place by explaining a genuinely two-step interaction. The critical caveats, 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', are front-loaded, and workflow details are ordered exactly as the agent must execute them.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly across both steps. It covers inputs, intermediate output, the confirmation token, user consent, the email-link side effect, and the condition for the second call.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful workflow semantics: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields field keys, consent is only true when the quoted sentence has been read and agreed to, and confirmation is the token received from step 1. This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Abnormal Load Quotes' and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It clearly defines a two-step submission workflow, which distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools that merely describe or fetch 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 explicit step-by-step instructions: call first with answers and consent=true to get a token, show the person the summary, then call again only if the person agrees, including the token. It also states the prerequisite that the person must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry.

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