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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that step 1 validates and returns a summary and token, that step 2 actually submits the enquiry, that an email with a clickable link is sent, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. The exact consent wording is also included. No hidden behaviors remain.

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 sentence earns its place. It front-loads the most important caveats, separates the two steps clearly, and ends with the exact consent statement. The structure mirrors the actual call sequence, making it easy for an agent to follow.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential context: the two-step flow, what step 1 returns, what step 2 requires, the email link requirement, and the consent text. It even references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, tying it to its siblings. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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 the input schema already describes answers, consent, and confirmation. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and tied to a specific agreement text, and confirmation must be the token returned from step 1. This clarifies how the parameters relate to the workflow.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Basement Excavation Cost') and immediately distinguishes it from related actions: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also clearly signals the two-step nature, which separates it from the sibling enquiry tools. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 invocation guidance: call once with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It also provides a clear exclusion ('not a purchase'). It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for correct use.

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