site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral context: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. It also describes what information the tool returns. It stops short of explicitly stating that this tool itself is side-effect-free, but the descriptive wording makes that clear.

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 each sentence earns its place: purpose, no-sale reassurance, and returned contents. It is compact, scannable, and free of 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, no-output-schema informational tool, this description is complete. It explains what the tool is for, what submit_enquiry does, the reassurance that no commitment occurs, and exactly what information is returned.

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 useful context about what the returned explanation covers, which is all that is needed here.

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 explains what submit_enquiry does, including the no-purchase, no-guarantee nature of the enquiry. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the 'read first' explanatory tool while submit_enquiry is the actual action tool.

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 phrase 'Read first' is an explicit cue that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It doesn't enumerate exclusions or mention enquiry_fields as an alternative, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough for an agent.

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 disclosure burden. It clearly explains what the tool provides and how the returned field keys relate to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or error conditions, but for a simple field-listing tool the described output is largely sufficient.

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 compact sentences deliver all essential information without filler. The core content is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a directly actionable usage note.

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 fully covers what the agent needs: what fields are returned, the meaning of the output, and how to use the output with submit_enquiry. There are no significant missing details.

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 for this dimension is 4. The description adds useful contextual meaning by explaining that returned field keys are the keys to use when submitting answers, which helps an agent understand how the output is consumed.

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 — every field of the Agricultural Building Cost enquiry — and enumerates the returned attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' and it does not distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives clear practical usage: answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by the field keys returned here. This establishes a workflow but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or how it compares to enquiry_describe, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 and does so: it discloses the validate-then-summarize behavior of step 1, the returned artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the email-plus-click gate before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact scope of consent (up to three firms, name disclosure, opt-out).

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 the critical caveat, then organized as Step 1 / Step 2 / consent definition. The full consent sentence is quoted verbatim here even though the schema already repeats it in the consent parameter description, which is mild redundancy.

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-call, consent-gated submission tool with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: the sequencing, what step 1 returns, what step 2 requires, and the downstream email-confirmation behavior.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by tying 'answers' to the enquiry_fields sibling, defining what consent actually authorizes, and clarifying that 'confirmation' is the token produced by step 1 and only passed on the second call.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to human providers), and immediately rules out two likely misreadings: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields without opening any schema.

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 two-step protocol is spelled out explicitly: Step 1 with answers+consent=true, then Step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token added. The gating condition for the second call and the prerequisite for step 1 (answers keyed by enquiry_fields) are both stated.

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