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 of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly: it reveals validation, step-1 return values, the second-call side effect, the emailed link requirement, and the exact consent wording. It also sets correct expectations by clarifying that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 well-organized as Step 1 and Step 2, with important caveats front-loaded. It loses one point because it repeats the exact consent text already in the schema and restates the title's 'not a purchase' caveat, creating minor redundancy in an otherwise efficient explanation.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke both steps correctly, including what step 1 returns and what step 2 requires. It also covers the human-approval and email-link conditions that determine whether the enquiry is actually visible to providers.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful workflow semantics: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent requires the exact quoted agreement, and confirmation must come from step 1 and be passed on the second call with the same answers. These step dependencies go beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 ('submits'), a specific target ('Agricultural Building Cost'), and explicitly negates confusion ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly identifies this as the submission action, distinct from sibling tools 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 two-step workflow is explicit: call first with answers and consent=true, show the person the returned summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, reusing the same answers and adding the confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys and explains that provider visibility requires the emailed link to be clicked.

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