site

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 does this well: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and it explicitly lists what the tool returns, including who receives the details, the consent wording, and confirmation mechanics.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The most important guidance ('Read first') is front-loaded, followed by a plain explanation of the flow and then the return-value specifics. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter, purely informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the key caveats (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free), and what information it returns. No critical context needed to call or interpret this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds useful context about what the returned information covers, which is the closest analogue to parameter semantics for this tool. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool with a helpful description.

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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and a specific resource ('what submit_enquiry does on BNG Quotes'), making the informational nature of this tool clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by explicitly not performing the submission, and from enquiry_fields by focusing on behavior and outcomes rather than input 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 opening 'Read first' is a clear directive to consult this tool before acting, and the description explains what the underlying submit_enquiry flow entails. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of enquiry_fields', but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is the orientation/explanation tool.

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. It communicates an introspection-style behavior by describing the field definitions the tool exposes, and the guidance to 'pass answers to submit_enquiry' implies this tool itself does not submit. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe the response container, but the phrasing sufficiently conveys a non-mutating schema lookup.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core subject front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: the resource, the enumerated metadata fields, and the relationship to submit_enquiry. There is no redundant or filler 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 introspection tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what information will be available and how to use it. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly describing the return shape or by mentioning how enquiry_describe relates, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 to document. The description still adds useful semantic context by explaining that the returned field keys are the values to use when calling submit_enquiry, which helps the agent connect this tool's output to the next step.

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 BNG Quotes enquiry') and enumerates the exact attributes returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also connects this tool to submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops just short of fully distinguishing from all 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?

The description gives clear workflow guidance: fetch the field metadata here, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or directly discuss when to prefer enquiry_describe.

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 behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, that consent means data goes to up to three consultants, and that the person can stop further sharing. This is far beyond what any structured field declares.

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 core purpose and the two-step flow before the long verbatim consent statement. The consent block is lengthy, but it is required text that must be surfaced to the person, so it earns its place; a minor trim of redundant 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' repetition would tighten 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 triggers (submission plus a verification email). For a nested-object, multi-step, side-effecting tool this is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties 'answers' to field keys from the enquiry_fields sibling, defines consent in operational terms tied to the step-1/step-2 flow, and explains that 'confirmation' is the token returned from step 1 after approval. That clarifies a parameter's origin and lifecycle beyond the schema text.

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 to BNG Quotes') and immediately disambiguates scope with two negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling read/lookup tools enquiry_describe and 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?

Explicitly lays out a two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers+consent=true, and Step 2 only after the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. The gating condition for the second call is stated verbatim ('only if the person agrees'). Nothing about when-to-call 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.