site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It sets expectations that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the service is free. It also lists the return content: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that the describe call itself is side-effect-free, but 'States plainly' implies a read-only informational 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?

Three short sentences with the workflow instruction front-loaded ('Read first.') and every subsequent sentence carrying essential expectation-setting or return-value information. No filler.

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 what comes back; it does, listing recipients, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. It also clarifies the business context: free and no guarantee. It would be slightly more complete if it explicitly named enquiry_fields as the place to get form fields.

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 full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline 4 applies because no parameter compensation is needed.

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 tool as one that 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Business Valuation Cost, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by framing itself as the informative precursor rather than the action, but it does not mention the sibling enquiry_fields, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

'Read first' gives an explicit workflow position: use this before submitting an enquiry. The description also implies the alternative is submit_enquiry when the user is actually ready to act. It does not name exclusions or mention enquiry_fields, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns field definitions and does not suggest any side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe the response format in structural terms.

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 two sentences with no filler. It states the core content first and adds the integration hint in the second sentence, making it easy to scan.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description is complete: it enumerates the output attributes, indicates the source enquiry, and explains how results relate to submit_enquiry. No output schema exists, but the description supplies enough about the expected content.

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 empty schema requires no parameter documentation. The description still adds useful context by explaining field keys are intended for use 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 clearly identifies the resource as the fields of the Business Valuation Cost enquiry and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). The verb is implied rather than explicit, but the intent is unmistakable and the tool is distinguishable from submit_enquiry through its focus on field metadata.

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 actionable context: it tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies the appropriate workflow of consulting fields before submission, but it does not explicitly exclude other uses or contrast with 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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the requirement that the person clicks an email link before providers see anything, and the exact consent semantics. It also clarifies that providers contact the person directly, which are non-obvious side effects.

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-loads the critical framing ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and structures the flow as Step 1 / Step 2, which makes it scannable. The long verbatim consent quote consumes space, but it is legally load-bearing text that the agent must show, so it 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns, and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token, downstream email). For a nested-object, multi-step mutation flow with no annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to execute 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, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that `answers` are keyed by field key from `enquiry_fields`, that `consent=true` is required in both steps, and that `confirmation` is the token returned by step 1 after approval. That is real semantic value 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 (submits an enquiry) and resource (enquiry to Business Valuation Cost), and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step framing clarifies what the tool actually is versus a single transactional call to any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-call guidance for both steps: step 1 with answers + consent, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also points to the sibling `enquiry_fields` as the source of the field keys, so the agent knows how to construct the call.

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