site

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose what the output contains ('who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms') and clarifies the outcome is free with no purchase or guaranteed quote. However, it never explicitly states the tool itself is read-only or non-mutating, and some clauses describe submit_enquiry's behavior rather than enquiry_describe's, leaving slight ambiguity about 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?

The description is front-loaded with the key instruction ('Read first') and purpose, then adds useful output details in three sentences. Minor deduction because the title and description both repeat 'not a purchase / not a guaranteed quote', and the specific page name 'Campervan Conversion Cost' adds limited invocation value.

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 sufficiently covers what the tool returns and frames it as a pre-submission explanation of submit_enquiry. It is slightly incomplete about the exact output format and the relationship to enquiry_fields, but for a zero-parameter informational tool, the description is largely 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already reflects that, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none 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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does', which clearly positions enquiry_describe as an informational tool rather than the action tool. It also references sibling submit_enquiry, helping an agent distinguish them. However, the title 'What you get: an ENQUIRY with a human' could be misread as the tool itself creating an enquiry, and the description never explicitly says 'this tool does not submit'.

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 usage signal that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry, and naming submit_enquiry as the subject being described gives the agent an obvious alternative. It does not discuss the other sibling, enquiry_fields, nor give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 behavioral burden. It transparently describes the output content and the relationship to submit_enquiry, and it implies a read-only metadata lookup. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe response format, but for this simple field-listing tool the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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 front-loads the core meaning and contains no filler. Every clause earns its place: the resource, the fields covered, and the downstream usage instruction.

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 no-parameter, schema-less metadata tool, the description covers the key information an agent needs: what data is returned, what attributes are included, and how the result connects to submit_enquiry. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying how this relates to enquiry_describe or describing the exact response container, 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 baseline is 4 as specified. The description adds relevant semantic context about how the tool's output should be used ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), even though there is no parameter surface to document.

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 that the tool exposes the fields of the Campervan Conversion Cost enquiry and enumerates the attributes included (key, label, type, required, help text, options). The title reinforces this meaning. It does not begin with an explicit verb like 'Lists' or 'Returns', and it does not contrast itself with enquiry_describe, 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 description gives indirect usage guidance by noting that answers should be submitted to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool is used to discover valid keys. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or provide any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers a verification email the person must click before any provider sees the data, that up to three specialists receive details, and spells out the exact consent scope. Mutation, gating, and downstream effects are all covered.

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 'NOT a purchase' framing and structures the rest as Step 1/Step 2, which is easy to follow. It loses a point for reproducing the full consent sentence verbatim, which the schema already carries for the consent parameter.

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 compensates by naming what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the person receives on submission. Nothing an agent needs to execute the two-step 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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow-level meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and only used after approval. This ties the parameters to the two-call sequence rather than restating their types.

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 to Campervan Conversion Cost') and immediately distinguishes intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can separate this from enquiry_describe/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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 call with answers + consent=true, show the person the summary; step 2 only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The condition that gates the second call and the prerequisite human approval are stated outright.

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