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 explicitly states the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms, which goes beyond a minimal descriptor. It does not explicitly claim the tool is side-effect-free, but the descriptive framing makes its informational nature 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the most important guidance ('Read first') and then delivers a concise, well-organized explanation of purpose, exclusions, and 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, low-complexity explainer tool, the description is complete: it states the subject, what is not happening, and what information will be returned. No output schema exists, and the description sufficiently fills that gap.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is required. The baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than nonexistent inputs.

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 tool as an explainer for submit_enquiry, using a specific verb ('States plainly') and naming the exact resource it describes. It also distinguishes the tool from actually performing an enquiry by emphasizing that '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 phrase 'Read first' gives explicit guidance to consult this tool before taking action, and the description repeatedly contrasts it with submit_enquiry, making the appropriate use case clear. It does not enumerate when to use sibling tools like enquiry_fields, so it stops short of a perfect 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose what the result contains, but it does not mention that this is a read-only metadata retrieval or describe any side effects, ordering, or response format.

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: it states the resource and purpose immediately, then lists the exact field metadata included, and closes with an actionable instruction. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it enumerates the fields returned and their role relative to submit_enquiry. It could add an explicit statement about being read-only, but this is a minor gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing meaningful for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no compensation 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 exposes every field of the Asbestos Survey Quotes enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It is easy to distinguish from submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly contrast itself 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 description gives concrete guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells the agent how to use the returned fields. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, but the context 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 fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-step statefulness, validation and summary/confirmation-token return, consent wording, and the post-submission email-link requirement before any provider sees the enquiry. This is thorough and non-obvious behavior.

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 longer than average, but every clause earns its place: purpose, exclusions, two-step flow, return values, consent language, and email verification. It is structured with clear Step 1/Step 2 signposts and front-loads the most important caveats.

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 stateful two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers call order, consent, confirmation token, and the email-link gate. It falls slightly short on failure-mode behavior (what happens if validation fails or if consent is refused), but the core invocation is fully specified.

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 already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds procedural meaning beyond the schema: the confirmation token must come from Step 1 and must be reused with the same answers, and consent must reflect the exact stated agreement. This is useful extra semantics, though somewhat redundant with schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Asbestos Survey Quotes.' It immediately clarifies what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which sharply distinguishes it from a purchase flow and from the sibling tools named 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 gives explicit step-by-step call sequencing (Step 1, then Step 2) and states the condition for Step 2 ('only if the person agrees'). It also excludes purchases, but it does not explicitly compare against enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields, though the reference to 'field key from enquiry_fields' hints at where to get parameter keys.

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