site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns—who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method—and clarifies that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed. This gives the agent a solid understanding of the tool's informational nature.

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 'States plainly,' and each sentence carries meaningful information. It is slightly wordy but not padded, and the structure logically moves from purpose to constraints to return content.

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 tool, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, what it clarifies about the enquiry process, key caveats, and exactly what it returns, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding to call it.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning about what the tool communicates, which is useful even though no parameter documentation 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on ADR Courses.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from the sibling submit_enquiry tool by making clear it describes rather than performs the enquiry.

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 'Read first' is an explicit usage cue, signaling that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It establishes context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond the implied contrast with submit_enquiry.

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 burden. It conveys that this is an inspection/metadata tool with no inputs and enumerates expected output attributes, which implies a read-only lookup. It does not explicitly state a return format, authorization requirements, or error behavior, but the simple, zero-parameter nature limits the severity.

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 efficient sentences front-load the tool's purpose and then supply the key integration detail. Every phrase contributes; there is no redundant filler.

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 complete: it names the return fields, scales to the full enquiry, and ties to submit_enquiry. No missing behavior is necessary for correct 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 covers that completely, so parameter-semantic work is already done. The description adds no parameter explanations, which is appropriate; it instead clarifies output keys for downstream submission.

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 identifies the resource (fields of the ADR Courses enquiry) and the content return (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It differentiates from submit_enquiry by telling agents to key answers with these fields, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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 final sentence gives concrete guidance: answers passed to submit_enquiry must be keyed by these field keys. This implies the tool's role in the submission flow, but it never states when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or mentions exclusions.

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 behavioral burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, that submission triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees it, and the exact scope of consent (up to three providers, notified per firm, revocable). These are precisely the side effects and consent semantics an agent needs before invoking a write.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then proceeds step by step, which is the right order for a gated flow. It is long and quotes the consent statement that already appears verbatim in the consent parameter description, a mild redundancy, but the bulk of the text earns its place by specifying the two-call protocol.

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 two-step, consent-gated write with a nested answers object, no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the missing ground: what each call returns, why the second call is gated, and what happens to the person's data afterward. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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; the description adds genuine sequencing meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true for both calls, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned in Step 1 and only passed after the person approves the summary.

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 ADR Courses') and immediately scopes it with what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also ties itself to sibling tools by referencing 'field key from enquiry_fields', so an agent can place it among enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields without ambiguity.

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: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, Step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The conditional that gates the second call is stated outright, 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.