site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains exactly what happens ('starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly'), what does not happen ('nothing is bought, ordered or paid'), the cost ('it is free'), and what the tool returns: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation 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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first.' The main sentence is dense but organized with semicolons, and there is little waste. Minor redundancy with the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' prevents a perfect score.

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, documentation-style tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what submit_enquiry does, what is NOT involved, and exactly what information is returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). An agent has enough context to call and interpret 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 empty schema properties, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output contents rather than parameters, which matches the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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-resource relationship: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' rather than performing the enquiry. It clearly identifies the tool as a descriptive/educational tool and distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry by emphasizing 'nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed.'

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 instruction 'Read first' gives explicit sequencing context: use this before acting on submit_enquiry. It also sets expectations about what the tool is not (a purchase or guaranteed quote), but it does not explicitly name alternatives like enquiry_fields or state when to prefer them.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool returns and enumerates the output contents, which is strong for an introspection endpoint. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or 'no side effects', but the wording 'Every field of the enquiry' conveys a non-mutating lookup clearly.

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 exact output content, and the second sentence gives a critical usage pointer to submit_enquiry. Every word 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 simple no-parameter introspection tool, the description is complete. It names the specific enquiry, lists the return fields, and explains how to use the result with submit_enquiry. Since there is no output schema, the description successfully carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive.

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 parameter semantics are a non-issue. The description still adds value by explaining how the output's field keys should be used as parameter keys in submit_enquiry. With no parameters and an empty schema, the baseline of 4 is appropriate and the description provides no unnecessary parameter syntax.

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 defines the tool as returning every field of the Access Control Cost enquiry, enumerating the exact attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe by focusing on the field-level schema rather than the enquiry as a whole.

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 provides clear context by explaining that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells an agent why this tool matters and how its output connects to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool when it needs field definitions.

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 behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses the two-step submission protocol, the consent requirement with the exact consent line, the confirmation token mechanism, the post-submission email with a required click link, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after that link is clicked. This is far beyond a minimal description.

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 dense but every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and exclusions, then logically structures Step 1 and Step 2, including the exact consent wording. It avoids fluff while conveying a complex multi-step flow.

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 tool with no output schema and a nuanced two-step workflow, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what step 2 requires, and what happens after submission. The only minor omission is explicit behavior for consent=false, but the schema and phrasing already imply it is not accepted.

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. The description adds meaningful process-level context: consent must be true only after the person has read and agreed to the specific line, answers must be keyed consistently between steps, and the confirmation token is required for the second call to actually submit. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 Access Control Cost') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step nature is explicit in both the title and description, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even next to siblings like enquiry_describe and 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?

The description provides a highly explicit usage sequence: call first with answers and consent=true, then call again only if the person agrees, including the confirmation token. It also gives a clear when-not condition ('not a purchase'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools, but the caller is told to use field keys from enquiry_fields, which gives practical context.

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