site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, paid for, or guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free, plus what information will be returned. It does not explicitly state that this tool itself has no side effects, though that is strongly implied by its describing role and zero parameters.

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 short and front-loaded with 'Read first,' and the key caveats are packed into a few clauses. There is minor redundancy between 'nothing is paid' and 'it is free,' and the sentence structure is slightly run-on, but overall it is efficiently sized.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by noting that the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. It is adequate for an agent deciding whether to call this tool before submit_enquiry, though exact return formatting is left vague.

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?

There are no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed; the description instead focuses on behavior and return content, which is appropriate for this 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 the tool's job clearly: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Asbestos Disposal Cost.' It is specific about starting an enquiry with human providers and, by distinguishing this from the action tool submit_enquiry, it separates the descriptive meta-tool from the sibling that performs the action.

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 signal to consult this tool before submitting an enquiry, and it references submit_enquiry directly. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or contrast it with enquiry_fields, but the intended placement before submission is clear.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what fields are included, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only metadata lookup, nor describe return structure or side effects. This is adequate for a no-parameter field listing, but it leaves the safety profile and precise output shape implicit.

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: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource and the specific field attributes, and the second sentence adds actionable integration guidance. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit retrieval verb, but the phrasing is efficient.

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?

Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns and how the output relates to submit_enquiry. It does not describe the exact JSON shape or mention enquiry_describe as an alternative, but for a simple field-metadata tool this is mostly sufficient.

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 input schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to add. Per the calibration guidance, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 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 identifies the resource ('Asbestos Disposal Cost enquiry') and enumerates what the tool exposes: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', but 'Every field of...' strongly implies returning the field metadata. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be keyed by field key, though it does not 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' provides clear context for when and how to use this tool's output. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with enquiry_describe, so it misses a direct alternative or exclusion clause.

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 well: it discloses that Step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that the agent must show the summary to the person, and crucially that submission only takes effect after the person clicks an emailed link before providers see anything. It also discloses the downstream behavior (contact details sent to up to three contractors, name emailed as details go to each firm, ability to stop further firms).

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 essential identity ('Submits an enquiry... NOT a purchase'), then sequences Step 1 / Step 2 clearly. It is long, but the length is driven by the verbatim consent text the agent must display, and each clause is load-bearing. Minor deduction for packing the consent quote inline rather than separating it.

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?

Given the two-step stateful flow, required nested 'answers' object, and absence of an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: sequencing, the token handoff, the display obligation, and the consent scope. Nothing material about invoking it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it ties 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields, is explicit that identical answers must be resubmitted in Step 2, and frames 'confirmation' as the token from Step 1 used only after approval. These flow constraints are not derivable from the schema alone.

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+resource (submits an enquiry) and immediately delimits it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', and names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys. An agent can distinguish this from enquiry_describe/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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the condition for each call (Step 1 with answers+consent; Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token), states the prerequisite (consent already obtained), and names the alternatives to avoid (it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote). Nothing is left to inference.

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