site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently explains what submit_enquiry does (starts an enquiry, nothing is bought/guaranteed, free) and what enquiry_describe itself returns. It does not explicitly state that enquiry_describe has no side effects, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly' strongly suggest a read-only explanatory operation.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the key instruction ('Read first'), states the core purpose, clarifies what is NOT true about the enquiry, and then lists the return content. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancies.

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 explainer tool, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, why an agent should read it first, what submit_enquiry does and does not do, and what information the describe tool returns. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description still provides useful context about what the tool does, but it does not need to add parameter-level detail because the input schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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 role: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Bat Survey Cost' — a descriptive, meta-level action distinct from performing the enquiry. The verb 'states' plus the resource 'what submit_enquiry does' makes the purpose specific and differentiates it from the sibling action tool submit_enquiry.

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 a clear directive to use this tool before engaging with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies this is the preparatory/explainer tool, so an agent can infer when to use it.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the exact content of the result and implicitly indicates this is a read-only metadata operation by telling the agent to pass answers elsewhere. It could be more explicit about having no side effects, but the behavior is strongly implied.

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 concise sentences deliver the essential information without redundancy. The content is front-loaded and every sentence contributes meaning, including the cross-reference to submit_enquiry.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully accounts for what the returned data will contain. It names all relevant field metadata and provides the key relationship to submit_enquiry, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

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 there is nothing to clarify. The description instead adds meaning to the output fields by naming their attributes and explaining how the field key should be used with submit_enquiry.

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 specifies exactly what the tool exposes: every field of the Bat Survey Cost enquiry with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This clearly separates it from submit_enquiry, since it is about inspecting fields rather than submitting answers.

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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives practical usage guidance and connects this tool to the submission sibling. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but the context is clear enough that an agent knows this tool is for field metadata.

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 disclosure burden. It clearly explains the two-step submission workflow, the consent requirement with the exact consent wording, the validation step, the confirmation token, and the email link the person must click before providers see the enquiry. This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and sequencing.

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 given the two-step workflow and consent requirements. It is front-loaded with the most important warnings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and structured clearly into Step 1 and Step 2, making the flow easy 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?

The tool is complex because of its two-step confirmation flow, consent handling, and external email verification step, yet the description covers all of it without requiring an output schema. It explains what each step returns, when to proceed, and what the consent requirement entails, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters, but the description adds critical usage semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the exact consent statement, and confirmation must come from step 1 after approval. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions and is directly actionable.

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 Bat Survey Cost' and explicitly distinguishes itself with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also clarifies the two-step nature, making it easy to tell apart from the sibling tools 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 instructions: call with answers and consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields as the source for answer keys, providing clear when and how to use the tool.

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