site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's output content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method) and clearly states the non-transactional nature of the enquiry. It does not explicitly claim read-only, but 'Read first' and 'returns' strongly imply an informational, side-effect-free tool.

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 opens with a direct instruction, front-loads the purpose, and adds only relevant facts about the enquiry flow and return content. It is compact and every sentence contributes useful 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description appropriately explains both what the tool communicates and what it returns. For a simple 0-parameter describe tool, 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 an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 names the exact object ('what submit_enquiry does'), so an agent knows this is an explanatory read tool rather than the action itself. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by clarifying that no purchase or payment occurs.

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' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before submitting an enquiry, giving clear placement in the workflow. It provides deciding context—free, no commitment, no guaranteed quote—and names submit_enquiry as the related action, though it does not directly contrast with enquiry_fields.

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 carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reasonably discloses what the tool provides and implies it is a read-only metadata lookup by directing actual submission to submit_enquiry. It could explicitly state that no data is submitted, but the description is not misleading.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the exact data elements included. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary context: what the field list contains, how to use it, and how it connects to submission. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 and the input schema is empty, so parameter documentation is not needed. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 what the tool exposes: every field of the Caravan Storage Prices enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' but the meaning is unambiguous and the relationship to submit_enquiry helps separate it from the submission tool.

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 usage guidance: obtain the field definitions, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This clarifies the intended workflow and distinguishes it from submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses what step 1 returns (validated summary, consent line, confirmation token), that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an emailed link, and that it goes to at most three chosen sites. Nothing about side effects or consequences is left to inference.

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 critical distinction ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded and the step ordering is easy to follow. It loses a point for pasting the full consent wording verbatim, which is already present in the schema's consent description — a redundant block in an otherwise efficient text.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover the return contract and the side effects; it does both by describing step 1's response payload and the post-submission email-verification flow. Nothing an agent needs to drive the two-call sequence 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 the 3 baseline applies, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers are keyed by the field key from enquiry_fields and that the confirmation token originates from step 1's response and is only supplied after the person approves the summary. How the parameters interconnect across the two calls is genuine added value.

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) and resource (an enquiry to Caravan Storage Prices) and immediately negates the most likely misreading: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It is unmistakably distinct from the read-only siblings enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe.

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 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition for each invocation is spelled out, along with the required human-in-the-loop display of the summary and consent line.

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