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 explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the process is free, while also describing the returned content. It does not explicitly state that the tool itself is read-only, but the wording strongly implies it.

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 filler. 'Read first' front-loads the key usage instruction, followed by a precise explanation of the enquiry's nature and a concise list of what the tool returns. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what the enquiry process entails, and what content the tool returns. The sibling tools are simple enough that this description fully equips the agent 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed, and the description introduces no confusing parameter-related content.

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 function: it describes what submit_enquiry does, explicitly distinguishing an enquiry from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The title reinforces the purpose, and the description names the sibling submit_enquiry, making the tool's informational role unambiguous.

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 'Read first' strongly signals that this tool should be used before acting on the enquiry process. It clearly implies the tool is for orientation rather than submission, but it does not explicitly mention or contrast with enquiry_fields or specify when not to use it beyond the implied prerequisite role.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It states what content is returned and how it should be used, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly say whether the tool is a safe read-only operation or describe the return shape/format, so some behavioral transparency is left unstated.

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, dense sentence that lists the returned attributes and immediately gives the relevant usage pointer to submit_enquiry. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given that the tool has no input parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, the semantics of each field, and how to use those fields when calling submit_enquiry. Nothing essential 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, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the description appropriately focuses on the output and downstream usage rather than inventing parameter detail.

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 ('Every field of the Borehole Drilling Cost enquiry') and enumerates exactly what information is included: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get,' but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from the submit_enquiry sibling.

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 final sentence gives practical guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent how to use the output and connects the tool to its sibling. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough to imply the correct context.

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 and meets it: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three contractors. These are the mutation, privacy and verification behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 most important framing ('NOT a purchase') and organized as Step 1 / Step 2, so it reads cleanly. It is long, and the consent sentence is quoted verbatim and also duplicated in the schema's 'consent' description, which is an acceptable but real redundancy.

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 two-phase mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return of step 1, the required user interaction, and the post-submission email verification. Nothing an agent needs to drive the flow correctly 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' must be keyed by field key from the enquiry_fields tool, and 'confirmation' only applies on the second call after approval. That cross-tool dependency and the conditional presence of the third parameter are not derivable from the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry') plus the recipient ('to Borehole Drilling Cost') and immediately negates the likely misreading ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it from the informational siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which do not submit anything.

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 spells out the exact call sequence: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token added. That is unusually clear when-to-call guidance, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the two sibling tools an agent might otherwise reach for.

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