site

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 well by stating that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It could be more explicit about this tool itself being read-only, but the 'Read first' framing strongly implies it only provides information.

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 tight and front-loaded with 'Read first,' immediately signaling priority. Every sentence contributes useful information about the enquiry flow, the return content, or the caveats, with no filler or repetition.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what submit_enquiry does, the key disclaimers, and what the return will convey. It is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it and understand the response, though a bit more structure about the returned fields could make it fully complete.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter descriptions needed, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool communicates rather than on parameters.

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 job: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns explanatory information about the enquiry process. It names the specific resource (Basement Excavation Cost) and the related action tool (submit_enquiry), making the purpose identifiable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling enquiry_fields, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 instruction, telling the agent to consult this tool before proceeding with submit_enquiry. It names the related action tool and clarifies what the enquiry entails, but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention the enquiry_fields sibling.

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. It does disclose the returned field metadata and implies read-only intent, but it never explicitly states that this tool has no side effects, nor does it describe the output structure. This is a meaningful gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the exact output content, and the second provides an actionable follow-up. Every word earns its place.

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 must explain return values; it does, enumerating the field attributes. It does not specify whether the result is an array or object or how to handle optional fields, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool with clear routing to submit_enquiry, the coverage is strong.

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 confirms this with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds a semantic link by explaining that returned field keys are used as answers to submit_enquiry, which helps the agent understand the data's purpose.

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 ('the Basement Excavation Cost enquiry') and the content of the result (key, label, type, required, help text, options), which distinguishes it from siblings. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' though the title and wording make the purpose evident.

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' gives a clear downstream usage context and connects to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus enquiry_describe, but the intended use is strongly implied.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the required email-click before providers see the data, how many contractors receive it, and the exact consent the person must have given. The 'not a purchase' caveat heads off misuse.

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?

Well front-loaded with the two-step flow and the purchase caveat first, and most sentences earn their place. The full consent text is repeated verbatim from the schema, which is mild redundancy but arguably reinforces the agreement the agent must show.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the step-1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email-link verification. Combined with the two-step contract, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by pointing to enquiry_fields as the source of the answers keys and by explaining that confirmation is only supplied on the second call 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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry), names the target (Basement Excavation Cost), and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. An agent can tell what this does without inspecting the schema or siblings.

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 and consent=true, then step 2 only if the person agrees, adding the token. It also routes the agent to enquiry_fields for the field keys and states the preconditions for each call.

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